Henwood v Municipal Tramways Trust

"Henwood v Municipal Tramways Trust (SA)" (1938) 60 CLR 438

Brief overview

Henwood, while riding the tram, was overcome by a fit of nausea and stuck his head out the window. This breached a bylaw made by the tram authority as a safety precaution, and he was struck twice by standards outside the tram.

Ruling

It was held that although he was breaking the law, he was still under the protection of the law, and as such the Tramways Trust was liable for negligence in allowing him to be struck.

"It was there held that there is no general rule denying to a person who is doing an unlawful act the protection of the general law imposing upon others duties of care for his safety." (Finnegan P in "ALAN ANDERSON v THOMAS COOKE AND BRIAN COOKE" [2005] IEHC 221

This makes more sense when you look at another example, again mentioned by Finnegan P, of an occupier who shoots someone breaking into the house, such as "Revill v Newbery" 1996 1 All E.R. 291, where the defendant shot the plaintiff who was breaking and entering. The defendant, or the occupier, was held liable for criminal damages, even though it was in defense of his home. It should be noted in this case that the plaintiff was also held liable for trespass.

ee also

*Municipal Tramways Trust

References

*Henwood v Municipal Tramways Trust (SA) (1938) 60 CLR 438