Tort; Negligence; the duty of care; foreseeability of harm; harm to rescuers; plaintiff's consent to risk of harm.
Facts: The driver of a horse-drawn van left it unattended. A boy threw a stone at the horses, provoking them to run away. A police officer on duty at a police station some distance away saw the bolting horses and, to protect people who were in danger, he attempted to stop the horses. Although he succeeded in stopping them, one of the horses fell on the police officer and injured him. The police officer sued the owner of the van whose driver had left the horses unattended.
Issue: Did the owner of the van owe a duty of care to someone who might intervene to rescue other persons from a danger arising from the negligence of the owner's employee?
Decision: The court held that the owner of the van owed the police officer a duty of care.
Reason: The court held that it was no defence that the police officer had chosen to intervene voluntarily. A duty of care is owed even when a person acts, either deliberately or on impulse, to protect others (even strangers) from potential harm arising from the defendant's misconduct. An element of policy appears to have influenced this decision, the courts being reluctant to refuse a remedy to a plaintiff who has acted courageously.