Court: Court of Appeal
Judgment Date: 30 October 1934
Where Reported: [1935] 1 K.B. 146; [1934] All E.R. Rep. 103; [1934] 10 WLUK 52
Legal Issues in Haynes v Harwood
The primary legal issue in Haynes v Harwood was whether a police officer, who sustained injuries while stopping runaway horses to protect public safety, could claim damages from the horse owner for negligence.
This case examined the applicability of the principles of negligence, ‘volenti non fit injuria’ (no injury is done to the willing), and the duty owed by those in control of potentially dangerous situations to the public.
Material Facts in Haynes v Harwood
On August 24, 1932, a two-horse van owned by the defendants was left unattended on a busy street in Rotherhithe by the driver.
The horses bolted, presumably startled by a stone thrown by a boy. The plaintiff, Police Constable Thomas John Haynes, was on duty but not on traffic duty at the time.
Observing the runaway horses and van, he left the police station, intervened, and successfully stopped the horses, but sustained injuries in the process.
Haynes claimed damages for his injuries, arguing that the defendants were negligent in leaving the horses unattended in a busy street.
The defendants denied negligence, arguing that Haynes voluntarily assumed the risk of injury (‘volenti non fit injuria’), and also raised the defences of contributory negligence and common employment​​.
Judgment in Haynes v Harwood
The court upheld the decision of Finlay J., awarding damages of £350 to Haynes. It held that the defendants’ servant was negligent in leaving the horses unattended in a busy street.
The court reasoned that such an action created a foreseeable risk of the horses bolting and causing harm, and it was reasonable to expect that someone might intervene to stop the horses to prevent injury.
The court also found that the doctrine of ‘volenti non fit injuria’ did not apply because Haynes did not voluntarily assume the risk; he acted in line with his duties as a police officer to protect public safety.
The court dismissed the defendants’ argument of common employment, stating it was irrelevant to the case​​​​.
Read case: Vosburg v Putney (1890)
The Reason for the Decision in Haynes v Harwood
The court’s decision was based on several key principles. First, it affirmed the duty of care owed by individuals in control of potentially dangerous situations (like horses in a public place) to the public.
The negligence of the defendants’ servant in leaving the horses unattended was evident given the busy and crowded nature of the street, which increased the risk of harm, especially to children in the vicinity.
Secondly, the court rejected the defendants’ argument of ‘volenti non fit injuria’. It clarified that for this defence to apply, the plaintiff must have voluntarily and knowingly accepted the specific risk that led to the injury.
In this case, Haynes’ intervention was not a voluntary acceptance of risk but rather a fulfilment of his duty as a police officer to protect life and property.
The court emphasised that a rescuer who acts under a moral compulsion in an emergency situation, especially when tasked with public safety duties, should not be penalised for their courageous actions.
The court also addressed the concept of ‘novus actus interveniens’ (a new intervening act) which breaks the chain of causation in negligence.
It concluded that the intervention by Haynes did not constitute a ‘novus actus interveniens’ as his actions were a foreseeable response to the defendants’ negligence.
Haynes v Harwood emphasised that the law expects, and does not penalise, individuals who intervene in emergency situations to prevent harm to others – see Glasbrook Bros Ltd v Glamorgan CC (1925).
Moreover, the court made a distinction between acting impulsively and acting under a sense of moral duty, indicating that both could justify a claim for damages.
It emphasised that the law should encourage, not deter, the protection of human life and safety in emergency situations.
Lastly, the court dismissed the defence of common employment, affirming that it was not applicable in this scenario where a public duty to protect life and property was involved​​.
Conclusion
Haynes v Harwood is a significant case in the realm of tort law, particularly in the context of negligence and rescue cases.
It highlights the legal responsibilities of individuals controlling potentially dangerous situations and supports the societal expectation for intervention in emergency situations, especially by those in public safety roles.
The judgment in Haynes v Harwood underscores the principle that legal responsibilities extend beyond personal safety to encompass the protection of the public, and acts of bravery and public service should not be legally penalised.
This case has influenced subsequent legal interpretations of negligence and rescue, reinforcing the notion that the law should align with public expectations of safety and protection.
