PRIMARY DETAILS OF THE CASE:
Haynes v Harwood is a leading case on the law of “Rescue Cases”. Haynes v Harwood is also an exception to volenti non fit injuria and novus actus interveniens.
TWO MAJOR CONCEPTS:
Volenti non-fit injuria- a person who agrees to engage in a risky activity cannot claim afterwards that the activity injured him.
Novus actus interventions refer to a situation where accident occurs as a result of
intentional actions by other parties, thus breaching the causal link between the
wrongful act that caused the accident and the damages being sought for.
FACTS:
In this case, being award damages for injuries sustained by respondent (defendant) at trial,
The appeal was filed by plaintiff (appellant herein) with this court (Harwood – owner of horse van).
The defendant’s servant, Mr. Bird drove the horse van unto Quinney’s yard so that it would be unloaded. On his way into dock he tied horses with drags onto tyre of his van and parked it facing towards police station.
Thereafter two playful hooligans threw stones at horses resulting in terrified animals rushing past police stations.
While, trying to stop them from running over some children and an old woman nearby one of the horses knocked down on him and he was seriously injured.
The plaintiff sued the defendant for damages and got compensated.
CONTENTIONS:
The defendant has tried invoking novus actus interventions as a defense because causation was interrupted by new action shown when boys threw stone while riding.
Defendant also seeks to raise dedefensef volenti non fit injuria arguing that complainant gave up risk willingly and therefore should have protected public safety himself.
LEGAL PROBLEM:
Can the defenses of volenti non fit injuria and novus actus interventions be invoked under this type of rescue case?
DECISION & RATIO:
Maugham, Greer and Roche LJJ
Because it is a case of rescue, the court held that novus actus interventions or volenti non fit injuria would not apply. He did so instinctively.
Because this street was usually crowded and the servant knew that there were some rogue kids around capable of making the horses run away,
The appeal was dismissed for finding defendant was liable to plaintiff’s injuries.
