Haynes v Harwood [1935] 1 KB 146

Material Facts:

The defendant’s servant left his horses with vans attached on the street without securing the horses. Whilst the defendant’s servant was away, a child threw a stone at the horses, startling them and causing them to bolt down the street towards a crowd of children and people on the street. The claimant, a policeman, on seeing the horses running towards the crowd, tried to stop the horses and sustained injuries. He brought an action against the defendant for damages.

Issues:

Whether or not the defendant was liable for damages suffered by the claimant who knowingly and voluntarily put himself in danger to protect others. (whether or not the defendant owed a duty of care).

Holding:

The defendant was liable for damages suffered by the claimant who knowingly and voluntarily put himself in danger to protect others.

Ratio Decidendi:

That the defendants ought to have contemplated that someone would attempt to stop the horses to prevent injury if they bolted. This was especially true for a policeman who had a general duty to protect life and property. Consequently, the attempts by the policeman to stop the horses were a result of the negligent act of the defendant’s servant when he left the horses unsecured.