Haynes v. Harwood
Easy English case explainer — short, clean, classroom style.
Quick Summary
A police officer ran out to stop bolting horses that threatened nearby children. He was injured. The court held the owner liable: leaving horses unattended was negligent, and volenti non fit injuria did not apply to a necessary rescue created by the defendant’s fault.
Issues
- Is the defendant liable even though the officer knowingly faced danger to save children?
- Does volenti non fit injuria bar recovery where the rescue was necessary due to the defendant’s misconduct?
Rules
- Where the defendant’s negligence creates an emergency, a rescuer who reasonably faces risk out of necessity is not treated as consenting to the harm.
- Volenti does not defeat a rescue claim, even if rescue is part of the plaintiff’s duty (e.g., a police officer).
| Citation | Haynes v. Harwood, (1935) 1 KB 146 |
| Court | King’s Bench (KB) |
| Area of Law | Torts — Negligence; Defences; Rescue Doctrine |
Facts (Timeline)
Set-up: Defendant’s servant parked a horse-drawn van on a busy street near a police station.
Precaution failed: A chain was fixed to a wheel, but it broke; the servant left the horses unattended.
Trigger: Children disturbed the horses; the team bolted toward the street users, including children.
Rescue: Officer Haynes saw the danger, ran out, and tried to stop the horses to protect the children.
Injury & Suit: He was injured in the attempt and sued for damages.
Arguments
Appellant (Plaintiff)
- Horses were negligently left unattended on a busy street.
- Rescue was necessary to prevent imminent harm to children.
- Volenti cannot defeat a compelled rescue.
Respondent (Defendant)
- Officer voluntarily accepted the risk; volenti applies.
- Chain was attached; precautions were taken.
Judgment
Judgment for the plaintiff. The court held the defendant liable. Volenti non fit injuria did not apply because the plaintiff acted under necessity to meet a danger created by the defendant’s negligence.
Ratio Decidendi
A defendant who creates a sudden danger is liable to a rescuer injured while reasonably responding to that danger. Consent is not real when risk is faced out of necessity.
Why It Matters
- Defines the rescue doctrine and its limit on volenti.
- Stresses duty to secure dangerous animals or vehicles in public places.
- Guides problem questions on defences and necessity.
Key Takeaways
- No volenti in necessary rescue: danger came from defendant’s negligence.
- Public safety: leaving hazardous teams unattended is negligent.
- Rescuer protected: duty-based response ≠ free consent.
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
HAR-WOOD = Horses bolting, Aid necessary, Rescuer protected — Warning to owners: Only negligence, Owner liable, Defence of volenti fails.
- Spot defendant-created danger.
- Check if rescue was necessary and reasonable.
- Apply rescue doctrine → limit volenti, find liability.
IRAC Outline
Issue
Does volenti bar a rescuer’s claim when the defendant’s negligence created the emergency?
Rule
Necessary rescuers are not treated as consenting; defendants remain liable for dangers they create.
Application
Unattended horses on a busy street bolted; officer reasonably intervened to protect children; injury followed.
Conclusion
Defendant liable; volenti fails; damages for the rescuer.
Glossary
- Volenti non fit injuria
- “To a willing person, no injury is done.” A defence where the plaintiff freely accepts the risk.
- Rescue Doctrine
- Law protects rescuers who reasonably face danger caused by another’s negligence.
- Necessity
- Acting to prevent imminent harm; undermines the idea of free consent to risk.
FAQs
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now