Bowater v Rowley Regis Corpn
[1944] KB 476; [1944] 1 All ER 465;
NEGLIGENCE, EMPLOYERS’ LIABILITY, DEFENCE TO NEGLIGENCE CLAIM, VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA, EFFECT OF KNOWLEDGE OF EMPLOYEE, ACCDENT AT WORK, HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK
Facts
The plaintiff was a carter employed to go around the streets and collect road sweepings. For this purpose, he was provided with a horse and a cart by his employer – a municipal corporation. The plaintiff was ordered by his foreman to take out a horse, for which it was known to both of them that it was unruly and had run away on two occasions when another employee was working with him. The carter protested, but he was told that this was an order of the borough surveyor and eventually agreed to take out the horse in question. A few weeks later, the horse ran away and the plaintiff was thrown from the cart and suffered personal injuries. The plaintiff brought an action against the municipal corporation for failure to provide him with a horse that was safe and suitable for the work he had to perform.
Issues
(1) Are the defendants guilty of negligence?
(2) If so, is there contributory negligence on behalf of the plaintiff?
(3) If negligence is found on behalf of the defendants, can they claim the defence of non volenti non fit injuria as the plaintiff had accepted this type of risk as part of his employment?
Decision/Outcome
The decision was in favour of the plaintiff.
(1) The defendants are guilty of negligence.
(2) There was not contributory negligence on behalf of the plaintiff.
(3) The defence of volenti non fit injuria is not applicable to this case as it does not apply to occupations that are not inherently dangerous such as working in an explosive factory or as a horse breaker.
(4) To rely on the defence of volenti non fit injuria, the employer must show that the employee undertook that the risk ought to be on him and that he was a volunteer in the fullest sense.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the decision in Bowater v Rowley Regis Corporation [1944] KB 476. The legal principles stated remain good law. The volenti non fit injuria defence continues to be treated as very difficult to establish in the employment context, and the requirement that an employee must be a true volunteer — freely and voluntarily accepting both the physical and legal risk — remains a well-established principle applied in subsequent case law.
Readers should note one material development: the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 (enacted shortly after this decision) significantly changed the law on contributory negligence. Under that Act, contributory negligence no longer defeats a claim entirely but instead results in a reduction of damages proportionate to the claimant’s share of responsibility. This does not affect the outcome in Bowater itself, since contributory negligence was not found on the facts, but students should be aware that the pre-1945 all-or-nothing approach to contributory negligence no longer applies.
Additionally, the broader legal landscape governing employer liability and workplace safety has developed substantially through legislation, including the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and associated regulations. However, Bowater remains a leading authority specifically on the narrow scope of the volenti defence in the employment context, and the principles it establishes are unaffected by those statutory developments.
