Haynes v Harwood [1936]
Share
Haynes v Harwood [1936] 1 KB 146 is an important English tort law case, setting a precedent that a defendant can be held liable in negligence for injuries sustained by a claimant while attempting to rescue others from the danger created by the defendant.
The plaintiff, a police constable, was on duty inside a police station located on a busy street frequently attended by many people, including children. The defendants owned a two-horse van, left unattended in the same street. The horses, startled, bolted along the busy street alongside the van. The police constable, seeing this from the station, went out to stop them but sustained injuries in the process. He subsequently claimed damages for his injuries.
The key issue in this case was whether the maxim volenti non fit injuria (to a willing person, injury is not done) prevented the on-duty police constable from claiming damages for injuries sustained while acting in the course of duty, despite being aware of the risks involved.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the ruling in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants were found guilty of negligence for leaving the horses unattended in a busy street. The court held that the defendants should have contemplated that someone, such as the police constable, might attempt to stop the horses to prevent injury. The police constable, in the course of his general duty to intervene and protect life and property, acted to stop the horses. Therefore, his injuries were a direct consequence of the defendants' negligence. The court clarified that the maxim volenti non fit injuria did not apply in this case. The police constable did not voluntarily agree to take on the risk; rather, he acted in the line of duty to prevent harm. As such, the injury was not considered voluntary, and the constable was entitled to claim damages.
This case underscores the principle that individuals, even if aware of risks, may still be entitled to claim damages if they act in the course of their duty and the injury is a direct consequence of someone else's negligence. The concept of volenti non fit injuria does not apply when actions are undertaken as part of an official duty.
The plaintiff, a police constable, was on duty inside a police station located on a busy street frequently attended by many people, including children. The defendants owned a two-horse van, left unattended in the same street. The horses, startled, bolted along the busy street alongside the van. The police constable, seeing this from the station, went out to stop them but sustained injuries in the process. He subsequently claimed damages for his injuries.
The key issue in this case was whether the maxim volenti non fit injuria (to a willing person, injury is not done) prevented the on-duty police constable from claiming damages for injuries sustained while acting in the course of duty, despite being aware of the risks involved.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the ruling in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants were found guilty of negligence for leaving the horses unattended in a busy street. The court held that the defendants should have contemplated that someone, such as the police constable, might attempt to stop the horses to prevent injury. The police constable, in the course of his general duty to intervene and protect life and property, acted to stop the horses. Therefore, his injuries were a direct consequence of the defendants' negligence. The court clarified that the maxim volenti non fit injuria did not apply in this case. The police constable did not voluntarily agree to take on the risk; rather, he acted in the line of duty to prevent harm. As such, the injury was not considered voluntary, and the constable was entitled to claim damages.
This case underscores the principle that individuals, even if aware of risks, may still be entitled to claim damages if they act in the course of their duty and the injury is a direct consequence of someone else's negligence. The concept of volenti non fit injuria does not apply when actions are undertaken as part of an official duty.
