I Year B.A./B.B.A., LL.

B  – Semester-I (2020)

1 -Internal Assessment 
st

Legal Research Writing

NAME: Mokshha Sharma
DIVISION: C
PRN: 20010126253
COURSE: BBA LL.B. (H)
BATCH: 2020-2025
 IRAC ANALYSIS - Haynes v. Harwood [1936] 1 KB 146

Forum In the Court of Appeal of England & Wales

Case Haynes V. Harwood [1936] 1 KB 146

Decided In 1935

Plaintiff Haynes, A Policeman

V.

Defendant Harwood, A Carriage Owner

Bench Greer, Maugham and, Roche LJJ

CASE FACTS:
Harwood (the defendant) was the owner of a two-horse van which was being driven and overseen by his
worker. In the course of employment, the worker left the carriage unattended and loosened on a road bustling
with traffic and packed with youngsters emerging from a close by school in order to collect the receipt of
delivery in wake of unloading the carriage. Few boys with mischievous dispositions tossed stones at the horses
which hit them in panic. As a result of which the horses bolted down the Paradise Street in fit of fear, unbridled
and out of control until they got near a police station where Thomas John Haynes, a police officer (the plaintiff)
on duty but not on point duty saw the abandoned horses approaching an old women and other folks at rampant
speed and found them to be in grave danger. The police constable rushed to seize the reins and managed to stop
the horses consequent to which he sustained several personal injuries.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
The plaintiff filed a suit and claimed damages for the injuries sustained through the King’s Bench which
included Greer, Maugham and Roche LJJ in 1935. The court decided in favour of the offended party and found
the defendants guilty of negligence. The defendant filed an appeal in the Court of Appeal of England and Wales
on the grounds of ‘volenti non fit injuria’ and contributory negligence which was later dismissed.
 ISSUES RAISED:
1. Whether there was any kind of negligence on the part of the defendant?
2. Whether a defence of ‘novus actus interveniens’ can be used by the defendant?
3. Whether the maxim ‘volenti non fit injuria’ is applicable to the case or not?

HELD:
(i) Greer L.J. held that leaving horses unwatched in a place where mischievous intentions may be
about even for a short time period of three minutes seems to be negligent towards the duty of
care one holds for protecting or preventing harm to life and limb of others.
(ii) The defendants ought to have foreseen that a rational and moral mind might attempt to stop the
horses in order to prevent mass injury.
(iii) The police owe a general duty towards the public to intervene wherever necessary to protect life
and property and therefore the act of the constable and the consequent injuries he sustained was a
direct ramification of the defendant’s breach of duty of care.
(iv) The applicability of the legal maxim ‘volenti non fit injuria’ is rendered nil and doesn’t not hold
back the constable from claiming adequate damages as he did not voluntarily agree to endanger
his life but did it in the pursuit of his official and moral obligation.

RULES/CASE LAWS:
The following rules were considered while deciding on the case:

1. Negligence occurs when a person performs an act or refrains from performing one and in doing so
breaches his duty of care that he owes to the person who claims for it, further due to which the claimant
suffers a personal or legal injury.
2. ‘Novus actus interveniens’ is a Latin maxim which means “new intervening act”. It refers to an
independent event which, after the offender’s act has been concluded to either cause or contribute to the
consequence concerned. In Lynch V Nurdin, it was held that young boys are of a very inquisitive
disposition and will meddle with whatever comes in their way, secondly public places are frequented
with such children and thirdly if owners or agents of such owners leave their possessions unguarded at
the hands of such intermeddlers in busy areas then the owners themselves will be responsible for the
damage and injuries caused due to former negligence and cannot hold the wrong acts of such children as
the chain cause of the consequence.
3. ‘Volenti non fit injuria’ is a common law doctrine that stands for the defence of consent. It states that if
someone willingly performs an act placing himself in a situation of risk, knowing that some degree of
physical or mental hurt might be caused as consequence to the act, he cannot claim against the other
party in tort. An exception to ‘volenti non fit injuria’ are Rescue Cases where the plaintiff voluntarily
attempts to recue somebody from any kind of imminent danger which is created by a negligent act of the
defendant, he cannot be met with the defence of ‘volenti non fit injuria.
 ANALYSIS/ APPLICATION:
In the present suit, the defendants presented their case asserting that the plaintiff by his own voluntary act
(‘volenti non fit injuria’) brought the risk upon himself and is also guilty of contributory negligence but in
circumstances like these not only arises a duty of legal obligation but also a moral duty to preserve life and
limb. Therefore there is no reason to doubt that in an exigency like this, the plaintiff did the best that a prudent
mind would do and therefore no negligence can be found on his part.

The general principle of negligence states that if a person is guilty of negligence then he is responsible for all
the consequences of his negligent act. In Donoghue v. Stevenson, it was established that one must not injure
their neighbour and neighbour – would include all persons who are closely and directly affected by the act of
the defendant. Hence, the defendant (Harwood) breached his duty of care towards his neighbours by leaving a
horse-lead carriage untied and unattended on a busy street. Moreover, it is quite obvious to anticipate that if
horses run away people are most likely to be knocked out and a prudent person, specifically an officer on duty
will surely attempt to rein the horses and avert danger and will inevitably sustain injuries. So the wrong is not
only done to the victim caught in the act but also to his rescuer. The court also held that the defendant is guilty
of the tort of negligence and that the injuries were a natural and probable consequence of the defendant’s acts
and the doctrine of ‘volenti non fit injuria’ has no application because the plaintiff acted reasonably with the
context of Brandon v. Osborne, Garnett & Company Ltd. Hence, Thomas John Haynes – the plaintiff is entitled
to claim the apt damages from Harwood – the defendant.

CONCLUSION:
The ratio decidendi of the court is completely rational and justifiable as it could be clearly envisaged that if a
carriage driven by horse were left unwatched that too amidst a crowd with mischievous propensities and is
disturbed by the same, a concerned citizen particularly a police constable on duty would try to capture it and
resultantly get injured during the same. The defendant in turn is not entitled to raise the plea of ‘volenti non fit
injuria’ as the plaintiff’s act came under the wider purview of his general duty to the public.