I Year B.B.A., LL. B (Div.

-C) Semester-I (2021)

1st -Internal Assessment –Legal Research Writing

IRAC Analysis

Topic
‘Haynes vs Harwood’

NAME: Arushi Sharma

DIVISION: C

PRN: 21010126272

COURSE: BBA LL.B. (H)

BATCH: 2021-2026
 FACTS

The defendant Harwood owned a two-horse van, driven by his servant, a man named Bird, on
August 24, 1932. He was collecting a delivery receipt on Paradise Street and, in doing so, left his
horse unattended on the left side of the street. The carriage was later found with a broken chain,
which the servant claimed to have put. It was a crowded street, filled with people and many
children due to the proximity of several schools. It is speculated that some horses bolted down the
road because of some boys throwing stones at them. They went uninterrupted for a few yards until
they passed a police station, the in-charge being the plaintiff Haynes, a policeman. On seeing the
runaway horse bolting, and a woman and some children right in the path of the horses in grave
danger, he tried to stop the horses and eventually succeeded in preventing any loss of life and limb
after dragging along with the horses for 15 yards, but one of the horses slipped and fell on him
causing severe injuries for which he sued for damages through the King’s Bench in 1935. The
bench decided in the favor of the plaintiff as opposed to the defendant. The defendant (Harwood)
filed for an appeal in the Court of Appeal, which was later dismissed.1

ISSUE

• The unattended horse van was found with a broken chain on the street filled with people
and children. Can this be considered negligence on the part of the servant?

• Due to the children throwing stones, the horse was agitated and ran loose, and the chain of
causation was broken. Will ‘Novus actus interveniens’ be applicable as a defense?

• When Haynes voluntarily put himself into danger to save others, will the negligent party
be liable for damages? Will the principle of volenti non fit injuria apply?

RULE

• “Negligence, in order to give a cause of action, must be the neglect of some duty owed to the
person who makes a claim.”-Greer, LJ
• ‘Novus actus interveniens' is a legal term that refers to breaking the chain of causation
such that even if the defendant has acted negligently, a subsequent intervening action
breaks the chain of causation, and so the defendant is not liable2.

1.Haynes v. Harwood, [1935] 1 KB 146

2.(Novus actus interveniens, 2021)

• Volenti non-fit Injuria is a common law doctrine that states that if someone willingly places
themselves in a position knowing that some harm might occur, they cannot bring a claim against
the other party in tort.3

ANALYSIS
• The negligence was proved on the part of the servant since he left the horse van in a busy,
crowded street full of children. It was also reasonably foreseeable that some mischievous
children could agitate horses, putting lives in danger. It was his duty to be present with the horse
or take them with him. Furthermore, the defense of 'Novus actus interveniens' was not
applicable since the injury to the plaintiff was not a result of the combination of the action of
both children and the servant. Still, the action of the defendant enough had foreseeable
consequences. In a similar Lynch v Nurdin4 case, the defendant left his horse and cart in the
roadway whereafter several children began to play with the horse and the cart; one jumped on to
the carts, and another wrongfully set the horse in motion whereby the plaintiff, who was the
child upon the cart, was injured. It was held that the accident could be a result of the defendant's
wrongful act because it was to be anticipated that children would do bad things and that anyone
who invites or allows children to do dangerous things cannot escape liability, saying that the
mischievous thing was an act of the children an, not his. The defendant had also taken the
defense of Volenti non-fit Injuria, saying the plaintiff had voluntarily put himself in harm's way
and could not claim damages for the same. It was observed that the plaintiff being a police
officer and not just an ordinary bystander, had a duty of care to the citizens owing to his
profession and the oath to prevent any loss of life and limb within his power. The Court
determined this through the context of Brandon v. Osborne, Garrett & Co. Ltd.5 Their decision
suggested that a policeman or anyone has a general duty to the public to preserve life and
property. Hence the principle of Volenti non-fit Injuria did not apply to this case.

CONCLUSION
The plaintiff was awarded the damages, and negligence was found on the part of the defendant. The
Court concluded it was foreseeable action that a person would interfere with the horses, causing
them to run. Furthermore, it was reasonably foreseeable that a person would attempt to stop the
horses, especially an on-duty police officer. Therefore, the defendant was held liable in the Haynes
VS Harwood case.

3(Volenti non fit injuria - Wikipedia, 2021)

4.Lynch v Nurdin {[1841] 1 Q.B. 29}
1.Brandon v. Osborne Garrett & Co. [1924 1 K.B. 548]
 Bibliography citation

• lall, G., 2021. Haynes v. Harwood | Lexpeeps. [online] Lexpeeps. Available

at: <https://lexpeeps.in/haynes-v-harwood-1935-1-kb-146/> [Accessed
October 9 2021].
• Agarwal, S., 2021. Case Summary: Haynes vs Harwood 1936 - LawLex.Org.
[online] LawLex.Org. Available at: <https://lawlex.org/lex-bulletin/case-
summary-haynes-vs-harwood-1936/26296> [Accessed October 9 2021].
• Chitalwala, M., 2021. IRAC Analysis: Haynes v. Harwood [1936] 1 KB 146 -
LawLex.Org. [online] LawLex.Org. Available at: <https://lawlex.org/lex-
bulletin/ irac-analysis-haynes-v-harwood-1936-1-kb-146/22214> [Accessed 9
October 2021].
• Designingbuildings.co.uk. 2021. Novus actus interveniens. [online] Available
at: <https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Novus_actus_interveniens>
[Accessed 9 October 2021].
• En.wikipedia.org. 2021. Volenti non fit injuria - Wikipedia. [online] Available
at: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volenti_non_fit_injuria> [Accessed 9
October 2021].
• My Legal Partner. 2021. Haynes v. Harwood – My Legal Partner. [online]
Available at: <https://mylegalpartner.wordpress.com/tag/haynes-v-
harwood/> [Accessed 9 October 2021].

• Why do pedestrians keep getting hit by trains? NJ Transit is trying to ... -

City-Data.com. https://www.city-data.com/forum/new-jersey/3255304-why-
do-pedestrians-keep-getting-hit.html

• Was there negligence on the part of the nursing staff in ....

https://www.platinumwriting.org/writing-styles/general-questions/was-there-
negligence-on-the-part-of-the-nursing-staff-in-the-care-of-this-patient/

• Haynes v. Harwood – My Legal Partner.

https://mylegalpartner.wordpress.com/tag/haynes-v-harwood/

• New act intervening, 'Novus actus interveniens' | Lawyers ....

https://www.lawyersupdate.co.in/case-study/new-act-intervening-novus-
actus-interveniens/

• NRL walking through a concussion minefield.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/fitz-20170303-gupzp5.html

• Mustonen-Ollila, Erja, et al. "Actors in Society's Hybrid Information

Environment: Grounded Theory Analysis." European Conference on Cyber
 Warfare and Security, Academic Conferences International Limited, June
2020, p. 268.
•
• Conferences :: Academy of International Business (AIB).
https://aib.msu.edu/resources/conferences.asp