Bolton v. Stone
Rule established
A reasonable person calibrates precautions according to the genuine probability and magnitude of a risk, weighed against the burden of further precautions; negligence does not require guarding against every conceivable, however remote, risk.
Facts
- A cricket ground had operated for many years, hitting balls beyond its boundary only very rarely and never previously causing comparable injury. On the occasion in question, a ball was struck exceptionally hard and travelled an unusually long distance, striking the plaintiff on an adjoining road. The plaintiff sued the cricket club in negligence.
Issue
- Whether a defendant is negligent for failing to guard against a risk that, while not impossible, is genuinely small and unlikely given the activity's history.
Held
- The risk of a ball travelling this far, given the ground's long history without comparable incident, was genuinely small. A reasonable person is not required to take further precautions merely because some theoretical possibility of harm remains. The club had not acted unreasonably in failing to take further precautions beyond those already in place. No negligence was established.
Ratio Decidendi
Negligence requires weighing the probability and magnitude of a risk against the burden and practicality of further precautions, and the social utility of the activity. A reasonable person is not required to guard against every conceivable risk, however remote, particularly where the risk has not previously materialised despite long operation.
How to use it in an exam
- Key line: "In Bolton v Stone (1951), the House of Lords held that negligence does not require guarding against every conceivable risk, weighing the risk's genuine probability against the burden of further precautions."
- This is the leading authority for risk-utility balancing in assessing breach of duty.
Source
Source: [1951] AC 850
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.