AREA: Volenti non-fit Injuria
FACTS:
The defendants were the owners of a two-horse van which was being driven by their servant. In the course of the business on which he was engaged on behalf of his employers took him into Quiney’s Yard and Quiney’s Wharf on the left-hand side of Paradise Street, Rotherhithe.
servant, who had in the van two horses had to go to the wharf and there unload goods. When he had finished his unloading, Servant had to get a receipt, but instead of waiting where he was for this, he, out of consideration for the wharf owners, who wanted to go on with their work by receiving another van to unload at their wharf, took his two horses and the van out into Paradise Street, and left them standing on the left-hand side of the street facing in the direction of the police station, while he went to get his receipt.
In his evidence he said there was no room in the yard for his to have left his van and horses there. Two boys were coming along, and one of them, obviously with a mischievous propensity, threw a stone at the horses which caused them to run away. The horses ran a considerable distance without any one interfering with them until they got opposite the police station, where the plaintiff (officer) was in the charge room. Seeing what was happening, he came out into the street and there saw a woman who was in grave danger if nothing was done to rescue her; he also saw a number of children who would be in grave danger if nothing was done by him to arrest the progress of the horses. At great risk to his life and limb, he seized the off-side horse and tried to stop them both. After going about fifteen yards, he succeeded in doing so, but unfortunately one of the horses fell upon him, with the consequence that he suffered serious personal injuries.
ISSUE:
Can it be said that the plaintiff assumed the risk upon himself i.e. volenti non-fit injuria and therefore damage can not be recovered?
JUDGMENT:
Under the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the nature of the street where the two horses were left unattended, seemed to be a negligent act.
Damage to the plaintiff (officer) was the result of the wrongful act in the sense of being one of the natural and probable consequences of the wrongful act.
The doctrine of assumption of risk (consent) does NOT apply here, as the plaintiff undertook the act under exigency to rescue another from the imminent danger of personal injury or death.
Comments