SCHOOL OF LEGAL STUDIES,

DEPARTMENT OF LAW
ASSIGNMENT:
A Problem related to Rescue Case

Submitted To:
Dr. Gulafroz Jan
Assistant Professor IL-C-205
School of Legal Studies, Department of Law
Central University of Kashmir

Prepared By:
Sujeet Kumar
BALLB 2nd Semester
2007CUKmr35
Problem: -
A horse, who was left unattended on a
highway by its owner, bolts causing risk of
grave injury to people. A spectator rushes to
stop it, and is in the process gets injured. Can
he recover damages from the owner? Would it
make any difference to your answer if
spectator was a police official on duty?
Answer: -
 This is a rescue case.
 Rescue cases form an exception to the
application of the doctrine of volenti non fit
injuria.
 When the plaintiff voluntarily encounters a
risk to rescue somebody from an imminent
danger created by the wrongful act of the
defendant, he cannot be met with the defence
of volenti non fit injuria.
 What is Volenti non fit injuria?
Volenti non fit injuria (Latin: "to a willing person, injury is not
done") is a common law doctrine which states that if someone
willingly places themselves in a position where harm might
result, knowing that some degree of harm might result, they are
not able to bring a claim against the other party in tort.
 What is Doctrine of rescue?
• It is an exception to the application of the doctrine of volenti
non fit injuria.
• The rescue principle holds that, where a defendant has created a
situation of peril for a victim, the defendant will be liable to the
rescuer of the victim for any injury he may incur in the rescue.
This doctrine was originally created in case law Wagner v.
International Railway, by Justice Cardozo.
 Cases

 In Haynes v. Harwood, the defendants’ servant left two unattended

horses in a public street. A boy threw a stone on the horses due to which
they bolted and created danger for a woman and other people on the
road. So, a constable came forward to protect them and suffered injuries
while doing so. This being a rescue case so the defence of volenti non fit
injuria was not available and the defendants were held liable.
However, if a person voluntarily attempts to stop a horse which creates no
danger, then he will not get any remedy.
 In the case of Wagner v. International Railway, a
railway passenger was thrown out of a moving train due
to the negligence of the defendants. One of his friends
got down, after the train stopped, to look for his friend
but then he missed the footing as there was complete
darkness and fell down from a bridge and suffered from
some severe injuries. The railway company was liable
as it was a rescue case.
 In Baker v. T.E. Hopkins & Son, due to the employer’s negligence, a
well of a petrol pump was filled with poisonous fumes. Dr. Baker was
called to help but he was restricted from entering the well as it was
risky. He still went inside to save two workmen who were already stuck
in the well. The doctor himself was overcome by the fumes and then he
was taken to the hospital where he was declared dead. When a suit was
filed against the defendants, they pleaded the defence of consent. The
court held that in this case the defence cannot be pleaded and the
defendants, thus, were held liable.
 In Hyett v. Great Western Railway Co., the
plaintiff got injured while saving the defendant’s
cars from a fire which occurred due to negligence
on the part of the defendants. The plaintiff’s acts
seemed to be reasonable and the defendant was
held liable in this case.
 Conclusion
 If A creates danger for B and he knows that a person C is likely to come to rescue B.
then, A will be liable to both B and C. Each one of them can bring an action for the
same, independently.

• After analyzing all the cases and keeping in view the Doctrine of Rescue I come to the
decision that the defendant who is the owner of the horse is liable for the injury of
plaintiff who is a spectator and he can recover damages from owner.

• It will not make any difference to my answer if spectator was a police official on duty
because first of all he is a human being after that he is a police official on duty.
Thank
You