Don't know if this is the right one Ray, the Miller case below? "What was the degree of risk? The greater the risk that serious harm can be inflicted, the greater the precautions that the defendant will be required to take. In Bolton v Stone[1951] A.C. 850, [1951] 1 All E.R. 1078, a cricket club was not negligent when a ball was hit out of the ground and injured the plaintiff, because the likelihood of this occurring was so small that the defendant could not be expected to have taken precautions. In Miller v. Jackson ([1977] QB 966, [1977] 3 WLR 20, [1977] 3 All ER 338 however, the ball was hit out of the ground several times every season. In these circumstances, the club was expected to take precautions. " I cannot find another, and I do not know how many cricket balls were hit out of the ground. Merry Xmas to you and everyone else. Martin

Try referring to Ellis V Bristol County Council (I think) where a care home worker successfully claimed compensation after the home failed to replace a potentially slippery floor in a care home. The Court found that several slips had occurred (3 I believe) in the previous three years in the same place and considered that this was a frequent event that should have been dealt with sooner by the employers, ie it was foreseeable. The Court established that the vinyl flooring was therefore not suitable for purpose as required by The Workplace Regs and Ellis won the case. The frequency aspect of this case may assist you in your research.

Chas & Freelance, thanks for the heads up. I have read both cases at some time or other but I can never remember citations properly. Neither case is really juicy enough and both civil law cases which tend to be much 'softer' than criminal law. Hey, ho - back to the drawing board.