Talk:Miller v Jackson
 | A fact from Miller v Jackson appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 28 April 2006. The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
{{fact}}
[edit]I added fact because at least all direct quotations should be cited. This external link has the basic text of the quote but the last word is different which leads me to believe it was taken from another source. (Also a better source would be nice... but, that's not as pressing). Deos teh author have the soruce available... and which did he say for his last word: cricket "field" or "ground"? gren グレン 12:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Hello - author here. The Denning passage is a direct quotation from the published report of the case (available from Butterworths online, if you subscribe, or in paper form from any good English legal library). I originally quoted directly from the All England law reports ([1977] 3 All ER 338), but have changed to the Official Law Report ([1977] QB 966). Case reports often do differ slightly in their precise wording, although, these days, the actual judgment as handed down in court of often available, for example from http://www.bailii.org -- ALoan (Talk) 14:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
This case is part of the Torts curriculum down here in NZ. Does the club still play on the same ground, or did they ultimately move? 125.239.238.181 07:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- It looks as though this is the field over which the case was heard: Google Map Link. It looks well kept, so I presume they still play on this field. Bilious 05:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Irrelevancy
[edit]'It is not clear why attempting to hit a ball for six should be negligent, since it is one of the objects of playing cricket.' There is no reason at all why the rules of a game may not, in some cases, encourage a person to be negligent. 131.111.200.200 08:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Not all that clear
[edit]It's not at all easy for a first-time reader actually to find the judgement. I don't know whether it would be possible to adapt the very clear and well-laid-out US Supreme Court case infobox to English cases, but even if not there surely ought to be a summary of the findings in the lead paragraph, not only buried deep in the main text. Loganberry (Talk) 23:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)