판결 이유
A defendant is not negligent merely because injury is a foreseeable possibility. The risk must be sufficiently probable that a reasonable person would take precautions against it. A very small risk may be disregarded if a reasonable person would consider it insignificant.
사실관계
Miss Stone was standing on the highway outside her house when she was struck by a cricket ball hit from a nearby cricket ground. The ground had been used for about 90 years. Balls had been hit out of the ground about six times in 30 years. The batsman had hit the ball approximately 100 yards and it cleared a 17-foot fence.
판결 요약
The House of Lords held that the cricket club was not negligent. Although it was foreseeable that a ball might be hit out of the ground, the risk was so small that a reasonable person would not have considered it necessary to take further precautions. Lord Reid distinguished between foreseeable and probable risks.
주요 인용문
"It is not enough that the event should be such as can reasonably be foreseen; the further result that injury is likely to follow must also be such as a reasonable man would contemplate."
— Lord Normand
후속 처리
Applied in assessing whether risk is sufficient to warrant precautions. The approach is now reflected in the Compensation Act 2006, s.1.