Legal Case Summary
Haynes v Harwood [1936] 1 KB 146
NEGLIGENCE, POLICE, RISK IN COURSE OF DUTY, INJURY IN COURSE OF DUTY, VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA
Facts
The plaintiff was a police constable on duty inside a police station, located in a busy street, often attended by many people, including children. The defendants owned a two-horse van which was left unattended by its driver in the same street. The driver had put a chain on one of the wheels of the van that was subsequently broken. For some reason, supposedly because a stone was thrown at the horses, they bolted along the busy street alongside with the van. The police constable saw them from the police station, got out and managed to stop them but sustained injuries, in respect of which he claimed damages. The King’s Bench ruled in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeal.
Issues
Does the maxim volenti non fit injuria (to a willing person injury is not done) prevent on-duty police officers from claiming damages for an injury sustained as a consequence of acting whilst being aware of the risk that this involves?
Decision/Outcome
The appeal was dismissed.
(1) The defendants are guilty of negligence by virtue of leaving the horses unattended in a busy street.
(2) The defendants must or ought to have contemplated that someone might attempt to stop the horses in order to prevent injury.
(3) The police are under general duty to intervene to protect life and property and therefore, the act of the police constable and his injuries were a direct consequence of the defendant’s negligence.
(4) The maxim volenti non fit injuria does not prevent the police constable from claiming damages for an injury sustained as he did not voluntary agree to take the risk but did it pursuant to his official duty.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary accurately describes the facts, issues, and outcome of Haynes v Harwood [1935] 1 KB 146 (Court of Appeal). The case remains good law and continues to be cited in English tort law as an important authority on the limits of the volenti non fit injuria defence, particularly in the context of rescuers and persons acting under a legal or professional duty. The principles stated in this summary have not been displaced by subsequent legislation or case law. Students should note that the case is frequently considered alongside later rescuer cases such as Baker v T E Hopkins & Son Ltd [1959] 1 WLR 966 and the broader treatment of rescuers in Ogwo v Taylor [1988] AC 431, which affirmed that rescuers acting under a duty or in response to an emergency created by the defendant’s negligence will generally not be defeated by volenti. One minor point: the citation given in the article states [1936] 1 KB 146, though the case is also commonly cited as [1935] 1 KB 146 depending on the edition of the report consulted; this does not affect the substance. The article remains broadly accurate for current study purposes.
