Haynes v Harwood (1935)

Law of Torts · General Defences

Facts.

The defendant’s servant left a two-horse van unattended in a crowded street. A boy threw a stone at the horses, which bolted. A police constable on duty saw the danger to women and children in the road, ran out and stopped the horses, and was seriously injured.

Issue.

Can the defendant plead volenti non fit injuria against a rescuer who deliberately ran into a danger he could see?

Held.

No. The constable acted under a moral and practical compulsion created by the defendant’s own negligence. A rescuer does not freely consent to the risk. The boy’s act did not break the chain of causation, since leaving horses unattended in a busy street makes such interference foreseeable.

Why it matters.

It establishes the rescuer exception to volenti, and it is the answer to the runaway-horses problem set in 2015.

📄 Full Law of Torts notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past exam questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · All landmark cases · All Law of Torts topics