Lunney, Mark

2003

Bolton v Stone is one of the best-known cases in the common law of tort. Fifty years after the decision of the House of Lords, this article considers the historical context in which the decision was given. One important factor in this context was the fact that, contrary to the usual practice, the defendants did not have liability insurance. Another was the importance attached to the playing of cricket. By finding that these defendants were not in breach of duty the House of Lords gave pre-eminence to the latter of these factors. However, by stressing that the facts of the case were unusual, it was made implicit that future cases (where the defendant would in all probability be insured) might well attract a different result. Thus, whilst Bolton v Stone is cited for the proposition that the cricket club was not negligent by not taking greater steps to prevent the ball hitting Miss Stone, it remains the only reported case where a cricket club has escaped liability in such circumstances.

The Journal of Legal History, 24(1), p. 1-22

1744-0564

0144-0365

https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/1462

en

Frank Cass

Six and out?: Bolton v Stone after 50 years

Journal Article

Publication