The Unnecessary Rescue: Cutler v United Dairies (1933)
Case Essentials
Citation: Cutler v United Dairies [1933] 2 KB 297
Court: Court of Appeal (England)
Plaintiff: Mr. Cutler
Defendant: United Dairies
The Story Behind the Case
A horse pulling a van for United Dairies bolted and eventually ran into a nearby field. By the time it was in the field, the horse had settled down and was not posing an immediate threat to anyone on the road. The driver, struggling to get the horse under control, called out to Mr. Cutler for help. Cutler went into the field and tried to hold the horse’s head, but the animal suddenly reared up and injured him. Cutler sued for negligence, trying to claim he was a rescuer acting in an emergency.
Facts
The plaintiff was injured attempting to catch a horse in a field, a situation presenting no imminent danger or real emergency.
Issue
Can a plaintiff rely on the “rescue exception” to defeat the defence of consent when there is no actual emergency or immediate danger to the public?
Rule
The rescue exception to Volenti non fit injuria only applies when a person intervenes in a real emergency to save life or property. If there is no real emergency, the defence of volenti applies, meaning the plaintiff is considered to have voluntarily assumed the risk.
Analysis
The court distinguished this situation from true rescue cases like Haynes v Harwood. Here, the horse was safely in a field and not actively threatening women, children, or property. There was no urgent moral or legal duty forcing Cutler to act. Because there was no immediate crisis, his decision to step in and try to handle a restless horse was a completely voluntary choice. By doing so, he fully accepted the obvious risk of getting hurt.
Case Outcome: The defence of Volenti non fit injuria was UPHELD. The court ruled in favor of the defendant, establishing that without a real emergency, the plaintiff’s intervention was voluntary and barred him from claiming damages.