Henwood v Municipal Tramways Trust
 | This article needs more links to other articles to help integrate it into the encyclopedia. (October 2015) |
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. In this case that the plaintiff was also held liable for trespass.
See also
References
- Henwood v Municipal Tramways Trust (SA) (1938) 60 CLR 438
 | This article related to Australian law is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |