HAYNES vs HARWOOD (1935)
1 KB 146
Facts
Haynes v. Harwood (1935) is a classic tort law case concerning the doctrine of necessity and liability for dangerous objects. The case involved a runaway horse that caused injury to a police officer who attempted to stop it.
The defendant, Harwood, had left a horse-drawn van unattended on a busy street in London. Some children threw stones at the horses, causing them to panic and bolt through the street. Seeing the imminent danger to pedestrians, a police officer, Haynes, risked his life to stop the horses and was seriously injured in the process.
Haynes sued Harwood, claiming that Harwood had been negligent in leaving the horses unattended in a public place, thereby creating a hazardous situation. Harwood defended himself by arguing that the horses were startled by third parties (children) and that he could not be held liable for their actions.
Issues
Whether leaving horses unattended in a public place constituted negligence.
Whether the intervention by a rescuer (the police officer) created a legal obligation on the defendant to compensate for injuries suffered.
Whether the act of third parties (children throwing stones) could exempt the defendant from liability.
Judgment
The King’s Bench Division ruled in favor of Haynes, the police officer, and held Harwood liable for negligence. The Court emphasized the following legal principles:
Leaving dangerous objects unattended in a public place amounts to negligence – The defendant had a duty of care to ensure that his horses did not become a hazard to the public.
The doctrine of “Rescue Cases” applies – A person who voluntarily risks their life to protect others from foreseeable danger should be compensated if injured.
Intervention by third parties does not absolve negligence – Even though children provoked the horses, the defendant was still responsible because the primary act of negligence (leaving the horses unattended) created the dangerous situation.
The Court ruled that Haynes was entitled to compensation for his injuries since he had acted bravely to prevent harm to the public and had suffered due to Harwood’s negligence.
Contemporary Relevance
This case is an important precedent in tort law and negligence liability. It has influenced rulings worldwide on duty of care, rescue cases, and liability for hazardous objects.
Today, the principles of Haynes v. Harwood apply in cases involving unattended vehicles, dangerous animals, and hazardous equipment left in public spaces. It reinforces that:
Owners of potentially dangerous property must exercise reasonable care to prevent harm.
Rescuers are entitled to legal protection – If they get injured while saving others from danger caused by negligence, they can claim compensation.
Foreseeable risks must be prevented – Negligence is established if a person leaves something unattended that could predictably cause harm.
This case continues to shape modern negligence and liability laws, particularly in situations involving public safety, employer responsibility, and hazardous conditions.
SAKSHI
DNLU
Comments