HAYNES V HARWOOD [1936] 1 KB 146

 

FACTS

1. Harwood’s servant parked a two-horse carriage on a public street, leaving it unattended near a police station.
2. A group of mischievous children provoked the horses, causing them to break free and rampage through the street, posing a serious threat to public safety.
3. Haynes, a police officer, observed the runaway horses and, in an attempt to protect the public, rushed to stop them. In doing so, he sustained injuries.

ISSUES

The key issue was whether Harwood, or his servant, could be held liable for the injuries sustained by Haynes, who intervened to prevent harm to the public, and whether the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria (consent to risk) applied in this case.

CONTENTIONS

1. Plaintiff’s Argument (Haynes):
• Haynes argued that as a police officer, he had a duty to protect the public. He claimed that his actions were necessary given the circumstances, and that the defense of volenti non fit injuria did not apply since his decision to act was based on the urgency of the situation caused by the defendant’s negligence.
2. Defendant’s Argument (Harwood):
• Harwood argued that Haynes voluntarily assumed the risk by intervening and, therefore, should not be entitled to damages. They claimed that the rescue effort was a voluntary act, and as such, they should not be held liable for the injuries.

RATIO DECIDENDI

The court held that the defense of volenti non fit injuria does not apply when a person acts to rescue others from imminent danger caused by another party’s negligence. In such cases, the rescuer's actions, even if voluntary, do not relieve the negligent party of liability, provided the rescuer’s actions were reasonable given the circumstances.

DECISION

The court upheld the trial court’s decision in favor of Haynes. It dismissed the appeal, finding Harwood liable for the injuries sustained by Haynes. The court emphasized that a rescuer who acts to prevent harm in an emergency caused by the defendant’s negligence is not barred from recovering damages, even if the rescuer willingly takes on the risk.

CONCLUSION

Haynes v Harwood established a significant legal precedent that a person who risks their safety to rescue others from harm caused by someone else’s negligence is not prevented from seeking compensation for injuries. The case clarified that the defense of volenti non fit injuria does not apply in situations where a rescuer acts out of necessity to protect the public from imminent danger. This case remains a cornerstone in the realm of public safety and negligence law.