Skip to content

CS Executive · Jurisprudence, Interpretation and General Laws · Law of Torts

A cricket ball hit for a six during a match on a ground enclosed by a high fence goes out and injures a passer-by on the road, which happens very rarely. The club had taken usual precautions. Which reasoning supports the club's defence in negligence?

The club can argue that the risk of the ball leaving the ground was very remote and that it took the usual precautions, such as a high fence. A reasonable person need not guard against every remote possibility, so there is no breach of duty and no negligence.

  1. AThe risk was remote and reasonable precautions were taken, so no breach of the duty of care occurredCorrect
  2. BLiability is strict, so only the batsman's intention matters
  3. CThe passer-by is barred because roads are public property
  4. DNegligence needs the defendant to have intended the injury, which was absent

Explanation

Breach depends on whether a reasonable person would have guarded against the risk; a very remote risk with usual precautions taken is no breach. Negligence does not require intention, so the last option is wrong. Public road use does not bar a claim.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Law of Torts shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Law of TortsFree diagnostic mock

More Law of Torts questions