Haynes v Harwood [1935]

Facts

  • The defendant left his horse unattended
  • The horse attempted to attack a child who was provocing the horse
  • A police officer, the claimant, was injured trying to protect the child

Issue

  • Was the defendant liable for leaving his horse unattended

Decision

  • Liability allowed

Reasoning

  • Leaving the horse unattended had created a danger ‘ready to be sparked off’
RELATED CASE  McKew v Holland [1969]

Posted in Tort Law Revision Notes.

This page was last updated on 6th January 2014

© 2020 Webstroke Law - Terms and Privacy Policy