Facts
Cricket balls were hit out of a village ground into neighbouring houses several times each season, causing damage.
Issue
Was the club liable when the risk of balls escaping was frequent?
Held
The club was liable in and (though an was refused).
Principle
Where harm is likely and recurring, failing to prevent it is a breach.
Why it matters
Contrast with Bolton v Stone on likelihood of harm.
Cited in these chapters
Cite this page
Miller v Jackson [1977] QB 966 (Lanbuk) <https://www.lanbuk.com/llb/torts/cases/miller-v-jackson> accessed 31 October 2026
The accessed date is today's date. Check your course or publisher's style guide.
This summary is a Lanbuk study aid based on the generally known facts and reports of the case. It is not legal advice.