Miller v Jackson [1977] QB 966 is a famous Court of Appeal of England and Wales case in the torts of negligence and nuisance.

The court considered whether the defendant - the chairman of a local cricket club, on behalf of its members - was liable in nuisance or negligence when cricket balls were hit over the boundary and onto the property of their neighbours, Mr and Mrs Miller, the plaintiffs.

Initially the Millers won an injunction at Nottingham High Court preventing cricket being played at the ground.

This was overturned at the Court of Appeal which decided that an injunction was not appropriate because cricket should be allowed to be played at the club ground.

Even though the club was unable to foresee when an accident might occur, it was found to be negligent whenever a ball caused damage.

The National Coal Board also owned a field adjacent to the ground, which it sold to Stanley Urban District Council.

Several cricket balls were hit onto their property over the following years, causing minor damage to their house (chipped paintwork, broken roof tiles) and risking personal injury to the Millers.

Despite measures taken by the club to minimise recurrences, including the erection of a 8 feet 9 inches (2.67 m) high fence in March 1975 on top of a 6 feet (1.8 m) boundary wall and asking batsmen to try to hit fours rather than sixes, a few balls continued to be hit out of the ground each season.

The club offered to meet the cost of any property damage (£400), and suggested further countermeasures, such as louvred window shutters, and a net over the Millers' garden.

The case is well known for the lyrical opening to Lord Denning's judgment, the first paragraph of which reads: In summertime village cricket is the delight of everyone.

Geoffrey Lane and Cumming-Bruce LJJ held that there was a foreseeable risk of injury to the plaintiffs and their property from the cricket balls and the club could not prevent accidents from happening.

The club was guilty of negligence "on each occasion when a ball comes over the fence and causes damage to the plaintiffs".

In the words of Cumming-Bruce LJ, the court had to "strike a fair balance between the right of the plaintiffs to have quiet enjoyment of their house and garden without exposure to cricket balls occasionally falling like thunderbolts from the heavens, and the opportunity of the inhabitants of the village in which they live to continue to enjoy the manly sport which constitutes a summer recreation for adults and young persons".