From Law wiki, the wiki for law research

[1951] AC 850 (HL). The claimant sued a cricket club in Negligence when she was struck and injured by a cricket ball that had been batted over the ground's fence. She failed at first instance, succeeded in the Court of Appeal, then failed in the House of lords. The question at issue was whether, it having been established that the club owed aduty of care to people in its vicity, the club was in breach of the duty. According to the Court of Appeal, it was reasonably forseeable that an injury could be sustained, and that the club should have taken more trouble with its fencing. However, the House did not agree that forseeability was determining of the matter. What was important was whether the club had behaved in a way that was reasonable, having regard to all the circumstances. There has to be a threshold of risk, below which no special precautions need to be taken. In this case balls had been struck out of the ground six or seven times in twenty years; the risk of injury was certainly foreseeable, but not high enough to merit special attention from the defendants. Whether injury is reasonably foreseeable or not is, of course, relevant to the question whether a duty of care exists. However, once it be established that a duty exists, the question of breach depends on the reasonableness of the defendents actions.