Ordered into Danger: Bowater v Rowley Regis Corporation (1944)
Case Essentials
Citation: Bowater v Rowley Regis Corporation [1944] KB 476
Court: Court of Appeal (England)
Plaintiff: Mr. Bowater (A carter and driver)
Defendant: Rowley Regis Corporation (The employer)
The Story Behind the Case
Mr. Bowater worked as a driver for the local town council. One day, his foreman ordered him to take out a specific horse to collect autumn leaves. Both Bowater and the foreman knew this horse was unruly and had bolted before. Bowater protested, telling his boss it was unsafe. The boss insisted, so Bowater reluctantly took the horse to avoid getting in trouble. Just as he feared, the horse bolted, threw him off the cart, and severely injured him. When he sued the council, they claimed he voluntarily accepted the risk because he ultimately agreed to take the horse out.
Facts
An employee was ordered by his foreman to use a horse known to be dangerous. The employee protested but complied under direct orders to keep his job, and was subsequently injured.
Issue
Can an employer claim an employee consented to a risk when the employee was ordered to perform a dangerous task against their expressed objections?
Rule
The maxim is Volenti non fit injuria, which translates to a “willing” person, not merely a “knowing” person. For the defence to succeed in an employment context, the worker must be in a position to choose freely without any compulsion or fear of discipline.
Analysis
The court ruled that a worker acting under the direct orders of a boss is not acting completely voluntarily. Mr. Bowater protested and only took the horse because he felt compelled to do his job. The judges noted that a man cannot be said to be truly “willing” unless he is in a position to freely choose without the pressure of employment hanging over him. The employer created the danger, forced the employee into it, and therefore could not use his reluctant compliance as a shield against liability.
Case Outcome: The defence of Volenti non fit injuria FAILED. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, establishing that an employee acting under orders and economic compulsion does not freely consent to a risk.