Haynes v Harwood  1 KB 146
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.
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).
The defendant was liable for damages suffered by the claimant who knowingly and voluntarily put himself in danger to protect others.
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.