Which of the following best describes what occurred in the case of Bolton v Stone? Select one: a. Even though the plaintiff was struck by a cricket ball, and injured as a result, this was not a breach of the duty of care. Relevant here was the low probability of the risk occurring, and the high burden of taking precautions that would have prevented the risk. b. The cricket club was held liable for an injury from a flying cricket ball because it was reasonably likely that a ball would leave the ground and that someone would be injured. c. Even though the plaintiff was struck by a cricket ball, this was not a breach of the duty of care because there was a high probability of the risk occurring and a low burden of taking precautions. d. The case established the principle that a defendant is always required to take reasonable precautions, no matter how likely the risk is to occur.
Question
Which of the following best describes what occurred in the case of Bolton v Stone?
Select one:
a. Even though the plaintiff was struck by a cricket ball, and injured as a result, this was not a breach of the duty of care. Relevant here was the low probability of the risk occurring, and the high burden of taking precautions that would have prevented the risk.
b. The cricket club was held liable for an injury from a flying cricket ball because it was reasonably likely that a ball would leave the ground and that someone would be injured.
c. Even though the plaintiff was struck by a cricket ball, this was not a breach of the duty of care because there was a high probability of the risk occurring and a low burden of taking precautions.
d. The case established the principle that a defendant is always required to take reasonable precautions, no matter how likely the risk is to occur.
Solution
The correct answer is:
a. Even though the plaintiff was struck by a cricket ball, and injured as a result, this was not a breach of the duty of care. Relevant here was the low probability of the risk occurring, and the high burden of taking precautions that would have prevented the risk.
In the case of Bolton v Stone, the House of Lords held that the cricket club was not liable for the plaintiff's injury. The risk of a cricket ball leaving the ground and injuring someone was considered so low (it had only happened a few times in the past 30 years) that the club could not reasonably be expected to have taken precautions against it.
Similar Questions
Jeff often walks through Samantha's backyard without her permission. Samantha warns him to stay away off her property. Assume that Samantha places a set of spikes at the entrance of the backyard and Jeff gets injured when he tries entering again. What is the best result?Multiple choice question.Samantha owes a duty of reasonable care to Jeff since his presence was known.Samantha cannot be held liable for Jeff's injuries because Jeff was trespassing.Samantha has caused a breach of duty by warning Jeff to stay away from her property.Samantha will be criminally charged since Jeff was an invitee at her property.
Strict liability is applied to cases involving abnormally dangerous activities that necessarily involve a risk of harm that cannot be eliminated by the exercise of reasonable Care.Group of answer choicesTrueFalse
Proof that the defendant breached a duty does not guarantee that the plaintiff will win a negligence case.Group of answer choicesTrueFalse
Which of the following situation shows intentional injury?*1 pointA repairman accidentally hitting his thumb while hammering.A school boy tripped off by an unnoticed rock.A flight attendant that slipped off the stairs due to her high heels.A girl's bleeding scalp as her hair is pulled by her classmate.
Professionals who breach the duty of care are liable for injuries that their negligence causes. This liability is commonly referred to as .(1 Point)negligenceprofessional malpracticebreach of contract
Upgrade your grade with Knowee
Get personalized homework help. Review tough concepts in more detail, or go deeper into your topic by exploring other relevant questions.