D was hit by a ball from P’s cricket ground and sued for negligence. HL said that although the injury was reasonably foreseeable, the risk of someone being injured was so small that negligence did not apply.
Lord Reid: the risk of harm, which has to be reasonably foreseeable, must also be a substantial one (though there are special categories that demand a higher standard). The test is “whether the risk of damage to a person on the road was so small that a reasonable man in the position of the appellants, considering the matter from the point of view of safety, would have thought it right to refrain from taking steps to prevent the danger.”
Lord Porter: “It is not enough that there is a remote possibility that injury may occur: the question is, would a reasonable man anticipate it?