Quote:
Originally Posted by flylock shox
I will give two points to the first lawyer who can cite the name of the case involving a cricket pitch that is probably one of the founding cases in this area.
Might be a Denning one, but I'm not sure.
|
Miller v Jackson [1977] QB 966, that cricket was in the public interest and stray cricket balls were not a nuisance.
The Court of Appeal delivered its judgment on 6 April 1977. Geoffrey Lane and Cumming-Bruce LJJ held that there was a foreseeable risk of injury to the plaintiffs and their property from the cricket balls and the club could not prevent accidents from happening. The club was guilty of negligence "on each occasion when a ball comes over the fence and causes damage to the plaintiffs".[2] The repeated interference with their property was also held to be an actionable nuisance. Following Sturges v. Bridgman, the fact that the Millers had "come to the nuisance" was no defence. On that basis, the Millers were awarded damages. Lord Denning MR dissented from the finding of negligence and nuisance, holding that "the public interest should prevail over the private interest"[3] However, on the basis that the club had agreed to pay for any damage, Lord Denning was "content that there should be an award of £400 to cover any past or future damage".[3]