When a valuable and much loved recreational activity can generate a risk to the public, albeit a very remote risk
What happened?
In August 1947, a woman was outside her home when she was struck in the head by a cricket ball that had been hit for six. She claimed negligence against the cricket club. The ball travelled 91m, over a fence that was 3.7m high, but because of a slope the top of the fence was effectively 5.2m above the level of the cricket pitch where the ball was struck.
The club had been playing cricket at the ground since 1864, and the road where the women lived was built in 1910. A witness stated that a ball had only ever been hit over the fence five or six times in the previous thirty years. There had been no previous injuries since the club came into being.
Legal Outcome
There were a number of legal outcomes (High Court and Court of Appeal), but in the end the House of Lords held that there had been no breach of duty because the likelihood of harm was low, the cricket club had taken all practical precautions, there had been no injury for the previous 90 years, and also that the cricket club provided a socially useful service.
What can we learn from what happened?
The issue here was whether the club had taken reasonable steps to prevent such an accident, in the context of how likely it would be that a ball is hit so hard that it travels such a distance – the club had erected an effective barrier, which clearly had done its job. Those who follow modern-day cricket will know that even today, 91m is an exceptional distance. In addition, the ball would also have to cause harm – the ball unfortunately hit the woman on the head, but the likelihood of that happening is very, very small given the large area the ball would be travelling into.
To further support the club’s case (and you may not agree with this if you don’t like cricket), it provides a social benefit, as do all sports clubs.
However, the woman was not at the ground watching, when spectators would be reasonably expected to look out for balls flying through the air, so for her she was completely unprepared for what was about to happen. Also, an argument is that while hitting the ball so far is an exceptional event, it is the objective of the batters to do just that.
And then you could argue that the club was there long before the woman’s house, so if you decide live close to a cricket club then it is not unreasonable for a ball to end up in your front garden.
Lots of arguments going back and forth here, which explains why the courts took three goes to reach a final verdict. The risks cricket clubs need to manage may be a bit of a moving feast.
Source of Information
Law Teacher
E-Law Resources
Wikipedia