"... it is necessary to focus on the potential scope of any duty. What is it that should have been foreseen, whom was it likely to harm, and in what way? In what circumstances is it said that there was a duty to take reasonable care? This can be approached by asking of the duty contended for what is there a duty to protect against."

Wellington District Law Society v Price Waterhouse [2002] 2 NZLR 767 (CA) at [42] per Gault J

Recall the following facts from the problem in Workshop 2: "Levy is batting in a cricket match at his local cricket club where he is a member. He hits a short ball outside off stump for six and it flies over the fence surrounding the cricket ground. The ball hits the windscreen of a Lamborghini Aventador which is which being driven ... on the road outside the ground."

Required

Having regard to the words of Gault J, what do you consider is the scope of any duty of care owed by Levy and the cricket club respectively?