Haynes v Harwood [1936]

Court: Court of Appeal

Facts: The plaintiff, a police constable, was injured while attempting to stop a runaway horse and van. The defendants had left the horse and van unattended on a busy street. The horses were startled and bolted, causing a dangerous situation. The police constable, seeing the hazard from his station, went out to intervene and prevent potential harm to others but sustained injuries in the process. He sought damages for these injuries.

Issue: The key issue was whether the principle of volenti non fit injuria (to a willing person, injury is not done) barred the police constable from claiming damages, given that he was aware of the risks involved in his rescue attempt.

Held: The Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the police constable, finding the defendants liable for negligence. The court determined that the defendants were at fault for leaving the horses unattended in a busy area. They should have foreseen that someone might attempt to intervene to prevent harm, such as a police constable performing his duty.

Key Judicial Statement: The court emphasized that the maxim volenti non fit injuria did not apply because the police constable did not voluntarily accept the risk; he was performing his official duty to prevent harm. The injuries sustained by the constable were a direct result of the defendants' negligence, not of any voluntary assumption of risk by the constable.

💡 LevelUpLaw: Haynes v Harwood underscores that the duty to prevent harm overrides the concept of voluntary assumption of risk in negligence claims. This principle ensures that those acting to prevent harm, particularly in official capacities, can claim damages even if they are aware of the inherent risks. The case affirms that negligence claims are valid when the injury results directly from another party's negligence, reinforcing the duty of care owed by defendants in preventing foreseeable risks.