Is this unreasonable?

[3point14]

I'm talking about This fellow (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5318595/Court-judgement-could-threaten-village-green-cricket.html).

I feel a (possibly irrational) dislike of this man. You'd think he might have noticed a cricket pitch backing onto the house when he viewed it, and if that was going to cause a problem, you think he might have bought another house.

Am I wrong?

[Stacko]

I'm talking about This fellow (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5318595/Court-judgement-could-threaten-village-green-cricket.html).

I feel a (possibly irrational) dislike of this man. You'd think he might have noticed a cricket pitch backing onto the house when he viewed it, and if that was going to cause a problem, you think he might have bought another house.

Am I wrong?

I have to agree with you. Couldn't the cricket club argue they have a public easement (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/public+easement) to his land or does that type of law not exist in the UK?

[Jeff Corey]

"Aware that a crisp, square leg pull could run under his gate or through his hedge; or a slog could arrow straight onto his roof, he issued a set of demands that would protect his bungalow."
Does leg pull = ground ball and slog = fly ball by analogy to beezbol?

[lionking]

I agree with your general point. I understand NIMBYs getting upset when huge inappropriate developments happen in their neighbourhoods, but get really annoyed when they start complaining about airports, roads, football grounds which have been there for decades.

However, here we have "duty of care" in play. Anyone can reasonably expect to sit in their garden and not run the risk of getting brained by a hard cricket ball. This has led to golf clubs erecting huge fences to stop slicers from hurting people, and in some cricket grounds in Melbourne, a ban on sixes.

It's just a pity it's got into the court system where the only real winners are lawyers.

[Lanzy]

The guy seems to have a point. "Just because the cricket club were here before myself and others does not give them rights over our properties."

I can't disagree with the statement.

[Carnivore]

Surely a duty of care also applies when buying a house that actually has a gate onto the village cricket green?

Is this so different from buying a house backing on to the airport and demanding that they stop letting planes land?

Also what are the chances that his bungalow will be safe from fast flying cricket balls if he DOES get his injunction? I understood that village cricket is a pretty hotblooded and cut throat affair. I wouldnt want to cross a village cricket club.

[Ocelot]

Yes he's being entirely reasonable. On a forum dedicated to the pursuit of critical thinking we're used to the idea that it's the unreasonable people who are dicks. However it turns out the being unreasonable and being a dick are not synonymous. Some people can be unreasonable and still manage to not be a dick and some people can manage to be a dick without being in the slightest bit unreasonable.

[Mojo]

There may already be a precedent relevant to this case: Miller v. Jackson [1977] QB 966 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v_Jackson) Would appear to be on point.

As regards Mr. Burgess's complaint about someone being knocked off their bicycle while cycling along a road that runs close to the wicket, see Bolton v. Stone [1951] A.C. 850 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolton_v._Stone).

[lionking]

When I was a kid if you hit a ball over a fence in backyard cricket, it was "six and out". Not a bad solution here.

[Mojo]

The guy seems to have a point. "Just because the cricket club were here before myself and others does not give them rights over our properties."


But see the comment of Cumming-Bruce LJ in Miller v. Jackson that "the Millers had bought a house with the benefit of an open space adjacent to their land, and had to accept that the innocent and lawful use of the open land could restrict the enjoyment of their garden".

Surely a duty of care also applies when buying a house that actually has a gate onto the village cricket green?


Volenti non fit injuria.

[Skeptic]

If he bought the house and THEN they built the cricket field, he might have had a (moral) point (not necessarily a legal one). Now that he knowingly bought a house next to a cricket field that had been there for ages, what the heck is he complaining about?

Perhaps I'm doing him an injustice, but I get the feeling that if the day after he bought the house next to the field someone had closed the field to build an apartment block, he would be the first to sue: "I bought the house for the beauty of the field next to it! Look what you've done!"

[drkitten]

Volenti non fit injuria.

Sciens non est volens.

[BonkingBear]

I'm talking about This fellow (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5318595/Court-judgement-could-threaten-village-green-cricket.html).

I feel a (possibly irrational) dislike of this man. You'd think he might have noticed a cricket pitch backing onto the house when he viewed it, and if that was going to cause a problem, you think he might have bought another house.

Am I wrong?

Yes - Mike Burgess is being entirely reasonable and I suspect he will get the injunction. The fact that they have being playing cricket on the green for 269 years is completely irrelevant - its a public hazard and needs to be sorted. Hopefully they will be forced to play with a tennis ball.

[GreyICE]

A cricket ball weighs slightly more than a baseball, and has a hard, golf-ball like outer coating. Impact from one could result in bruises, broken bones, or even death, if your luck is extremely poor.

It is fair to accept spectators and players have a certain amount of accepted risk when it comes to these things. It's completely unfair to suggest that geographically nearby houses suffer similar risk. I'd note that a backdrop for shots would most likely constitute sufficient protection. I'd submit that their three foot high hedge does not exactly suffice.

[Skeptic]

Is it just me, or there's something extremely pathetic in this complaint -- by an Englishman of all people -- about the horrific hazard and risk to life of cricket balls?

He reminds me of the 300-pound "moon landings never happened" guy who was punched in the face by Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin, twice his age and half his size.

Yes, technically, Aldrin IS guilty of assault and battery, and perhaps, technically, there IS a risk of flying cricket balls, but what kind of ball-less whiner complains about it to the law and makes a total ass of himself?

[BonkingBear]

Is it just me, or there's something extremely pathetic in this complaint -- by an Englishman of all people -- about the horrific hazard and risk to life of cricket balls?

He reminds me of the 300-pound "moon landings never happened" guy who was punched in the face by Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin, twice his age and half his size.

Yes, technically, Aldrin IS guilty of assault and battery, and perhaps, technically, there IS a risk of flying cricket balls, but what kind of ball-less whiner complains about it to the law and makes a total ass of himself?

It's just you - feel better now?.

[Beerina]

However, here we have "duty of care" in play. Anyone can reasonably expect to sit in their garden and not run the risk of getting brained by a hard cricket ball. This has led to golf clubs erecting huge fences to stop slicers from hurting people, and in some cricket grounds in Melbourne, a ban on sixes.


This sounds like a clandestine effort by Satan to get a foothold on Earth somewhere in Australia. Maybe we should redouble our efforts to protect Jesus on his return, there.