Haynes v Harwood [1935] 1 KB 146

Facts:

  • C, a policeman, saw a horse running loose in the street among children. He ran out, chased it and caught it but was injured.


Issue:

  • Does volenti non fit injuria prevent on-duty police officers from claiming damages for an injury sustained as a consequence of acting whilst being aware of the risk that this involves?


Ratio:
  • D was guilty of negligence by virtue of leaving the horses unattended in a busy street.
  • Police are under general duty to intervene to protect life and property and therefore, the act of C and his injuries were a direct consequence of D’s negligence.
  • Volenti does not prevent C from claiming damages as he did not voluntarily agree to take the risk but did not voluntarily agree to take the risk but did it pursuant to his official duty.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Sion v Hampstead Health Authority [1994] EWCA Civ 26

Summarise and discuss Lord Bingham’s eight ‘sub-rules’ of the Rule of Law.

3. ‘The defence of ‘Honest Opinion’ under s.3 of The Defamation Act 2013 is not robust enough to protect free speech and rights under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.’ Discuss.