Haynes v Hardwood(CASE ANALYSIS) PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Haynes v Hardwood(CASE ANALYSIS) PDF

Description

PRN : 19010125469 Name : Taposh Das Course : B.A. LLB Division : E Semester I

1

LEGAL RESEARCH WRITING 2ND INTERNAL ASSIGNMENT

Haynes V. Harwood [1936] 1 KB 146 NEGLIGENCE, POLICE, RISK IN COURSE OF DUTY, INJURY IN COURSE OF DUTY, VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA

Bench – Greer , Maugham and , Roche LJJ

2

FACTS - The Plaintiff , Haynes , was a police constable on active duty inside a Police Station which was situated in a commercially busy and extensively populated area of the town.

The

defendant was the owner of a two horse van carriage which he had left unattended by the driver in the street previously mentioned . The driver had attached a chain to one of the wheels of the carriage . The chain attached to the wheel had eventually broken somehow , and , the horses were agitated by children throwing stones at them and they eventually broke loose. In turn the horses after freeing themselves ran amongst the street in chaotic manner could have injured people in the street. The Police Constable noticed this situation from police the station and tried to stop the horses from injuring people and got injured while doing so, he then filed suit for damages against the defendant and won the suit which was later appealed by the defendant at the Court of Appeal.

ISSUE - The issues raised are : 1. Whether there was negligence in part of the defendant. 2. Whether ‘novus actus interveniens’ can be applicable to this case as a defence. 3. Whether the Defendant is liable to pay damages to the plaintiff for. 4. Whether the maxim volenti non fit injuria is applicable as a defence or not.

RULES - The Court looked into the following matters while deciding on this case.

1. Negligence is the omission to do or not do something which a reasonable man would do or would not do. Negligence means more than headless or careless conduct , whether in commission or omission , it properly connotes the complex concept of duty , breach and damage thereby suffered by the person to whom duty was owed and for a successful negligence claim four elements have to be proved ; duty, breach, cause and harm. 3

2. Novus Actus Interveniens , is a latin term for a new intervening act which breaks the chain or connection between the wrong.

3. Volenti Non Fit Injuria , 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 claim against the other party in tort.

ANALYSIS - The court having examined all the facts in the light of the rules and considering all the sides and arguments presented to it by the plaintiff and defendant considered the following applications of law to the case : 1. Negligence , to give action , must be the disregard of some obligation possessed to the individual who makes the case. In this situation if the duty was owed to the Plaintiff, amongst others then , the defendant has breached duty and it and led to harm as it was the defendants duty to secure the horse and van carefully failing which the horse had gone loose and could have harmed others if not stopped by the defendant who in turn sustained injuries while doing so.

2. In Lynch V. Nurdin , the respondent left his horse and truck in the roadway where there were various youngsters , one of them hopped on to the truck and another one of them unfairly set the horse moving and the person on the truck got harmed. Without a speck of doubt it can be considered that there was novus actus interveniens , in the actions of the youngsters . Nonetheless it was held since it was to be foreseen that youngsters would engage in such actions anyone who doesn’t take necessary care to prevent so cannot escape liability. 4

3. There can be no doubt in this case that the damage was the result of the wrongful act in the sense of being one of the natural and probable consequences of the wrongful act. It is not necessary to show that this particular accident and this particular damage were probable; it is sufficient if the accident is of a class that might well be anticipated as one of the reasonable and probable results of the wrongful act. 4. The defence of volenti non fit injuria cannot be used by the defendant as it was in course of the duty of the police constable to intervene and stop the horses from causing harm to others in the crowded area, and any harm caused by the horses to the plaintiff made him liable to claim damages.

CONCLUSION- The Court of Appeal after proper analysis of facts and rules of law applicable to the case dismissed the appeal of the defendant and also mentioned that the plaintiff can bring damages.

5...