Cricket Club - Hit By Ball
Sandy Goh
Let's say one goes to a non-sports event that is held at a cricket
club (in the clubhouse itself, not on the pitch). The clubhouse is
next to the pitch. Under what circumstances would one have a
reasonable cause to sue for damages.
a) Car hit by stray cricket ball. Car parking space is immediately
adjacent to the pitch; there is a hedge but this does not shield the
entire pitch.
b) One is hit by the ball (personal unjury).
I have always thought I knew the answer to this one but something
someone said to me just this week has led me to believe that I might
be in error. This particular venue has no warning signs, fences, etc.
Thanks,
Sandy
DaveK
"> a) Car hit by stray cricket ball.
> b) One is hit by the ball (personal unjury).
>
Someone must be to blame. If there's blame there's a claim. ("Accident Group
2003"-oops,sorry they went bust).
Prove the injury, negligence-recklessness-malicious intent, and you're on.
Find a lawyer to represent you, give him lots of money. Be aware that three
years later you'll be told that your claim won't succeed (various reasons)
and you're out of time. Further bill enclosed.
DaveK.
Mike Granby
> a) Car hit by stray cricket ball. [...snip...]
>
> b) One is hit by the ball (personal unjury).
Well, the famous cases re cricket balls are Bolton v. Stone, where a batsman
was not liable for injury to a passer-by from an exceptional 'six' hit
outside the ground, on the basis that this was such a rare occurrence that
it could not reasonably be foreseen, and Miller v. Jackson wherein Lord
Denning waxed lyrically and then declared the club liable for damage to
property under the tort of nuisance when this damage had been occurring so
often as to make future events foreseeable.
Within the ground, though, you get into the issues raised in Woolridge v.
Sumnar, wherein it was held that "[a] person attending a game or competition
takes the risk of any damage caused to him by any act of a participant done
in the course of and for the purposes of the game or competition,
notwithstanding that such act may involve an error of judgment or lapse of
skill, unless the participant's conduct is such as to evince a reckless
disregard of the spectator's safety".
The question is thus whether someone visiting the ground for purposes other
than viewing a game of cricket would fall under this ruling. One could make
an argument that if they were aware that they were visiting a cricket
ground, and could reasonably have expected a game to be in progress at the
time, there would be no liability, but then again, why would this logic not
extend to people visiting property adjoining the ground, where Miller vs.
Jackson has told us that one is liable for damage which is reasonably
foreseeable? It's a tricky one, but I think I'm leaning towards liability.