Eduqas A-Level Law A150QS
Parliamentary and European Law Making
Delegated Legislation
Statutory Interpretation
Judicial Precedent
The Civil Courts and Civil Process
The Criminal Process
Legal Personnel
Access to Justice and Funding
Contract: Rules and Theory of Contract LawContract
Contract: Essential Requirements and FormationContract
Contract: Express and Implied TermsContract
Contract: Misrepresentation and Economic DuressContract
Contract: Discharge of ContractContract
Contract: RemediesContract
Tort: Rules and Theory of Tort LawTort
Tort: NegligenceTort
Tort: Occupiers' LiabilityTort
Tort: Torts Connected to LandTort
Tort: Vicarious LiabilityTort
Tort: Defences and RemediesTort
Criminal Law: Rules and TheoryCriminal
Criminal Law: General Elements of LiabilityCriminal
Criminal Law: Offences Against the PersonCriminal
Criminal Law: Property OffencesCriminal
Criminal Law: Capacity DefencesCriminal
Criminal Law: Necessity Defences and Preliminary OffencesCriminal
Human Rights: Rules and TheoryHuman rights
Human Rights: Protection of Rights and Freedoms in the UKHuman rights
Human Rights: Convention ProvisionsHuman rights
Human Rights: Restrictions on Convention RightsHuman rights
Human Rights: EnforcementHuman rights
Human Rights: ReformHuman rights
Tort: Defences and Remedies
Volenti, rescuers and employees
- 3 things to know
- Components 2 and 3
Overview
Why a rescuer is not treated as having consented — Haynes v Harwood against Cutler v United Dairies — and how rarely the defence succeeds against an employee.
What you need to know
Answer each one before you reveal it.
What did Haynes v Harwood [1935] decide?
What did Cutler v United Dairies [1933] decide?
Questions from this subtopic
Each one with the model answer underneath.
- 1
Why is a rescuer generally not treated as consenting to the risk?
Model answer
A rescuer acts under a moral compulsion to save life or property. The law refuses to treat a response to danger created by the defendant as free consent.
- 2
What did Haynes v Harwood [1935] decide?
Model answer
A police officer was injured stopping horses that bolted through a crowded street after being left unattended. The Court of Appeal rejected volenti, because he acted to prevent immediate danger to others.
- 3
What did Cutler v United Dairies [1933] decide?
Model answer
A man was injured going into a field to calm a horse that had bolted there. The court allowed volenti, because nobody was in immediate danger when he intervened.
- 4
How are Haynes v Harwood and Cutler v United Dairies distinguished?
Model answer
The officer in Haynes v Harwood faced an emergency threatening people in a busy street. The claimant in Cutler v United Dairies chose to enter a field where nobody was at risk.
- 5
What did Baker v TE Hopkins and Son Ltd [1959] decide?
Model answer
A doctor went down a well full of fumes to try to save two trapped workmen and died. The Court of Appeal held that volenti did not apply to a rescuer acting in an emergency.
- 6
Does a professional rescuer lose the protection given to rescuers?
Model answer
A firefighter or police officer counts as a rescuer even though rescue forms part of the job. The wrongdoer who created the danger remains liable.
Other ways to work this
The same content, four other ways.
What is inside Levo
Six ways to work the same material.
Every question in Tort: Defences and Remedies, on a schedule.
Attempt a question from memory, write the correct version, then attempt it again. Levo records the jump between your first attempt and your last, and brings each question back on the day you are due to forget it.
Or £46 a year, about £3.83 a month. Cancel anytime.