Henwood v Municipal Tramways Trust
{{Short description|Judgement of the High Court of Australia}}
{{italic title}}
{{Use Australian English|date=June 2018}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=June 2018}}
{{Infobox Court Case
| name = Henwood v Municipal Tramways Trust (SA)
| court = High Court of Australia
| date decided = 30 June 1938
| full name =
| citations = {{cite AustLII|HCA|35|1938|litigants= |parallelcite=[http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1938/35.pdf (1938) 60 CLR 438]}}
| judges = Latham CJ, Starke, Dixon and McTiernan JJ
| prior actions = [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/sa/SAStRp/1937/61.pdf
| appealed from = Supreme Court (SA)
| opinions =
| Majority =
| dissenting =
| subsequent actions =
}}
Henwood v Municipal Tramways Trust (SA),{{cite AustLII|HCA|35|1938|litigants=Henwood v Municipal Tramways Trust (SA) |parallelcite=[http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1938/35.pdf (1938) 60 CLR 438] |courtname=auto |date=30 June 1938}}. was a significant Australian court case, decided in the High Court of Australia on 30 June 1938. The case was an influential decision in the law of negligence and is an authority for the proposition that the unlawful act of the deceased did not absolve the Trust from civil liability for its negligence.{{cite journal|url=http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/ResJud/1941/20.html |title=Case notes: Henwood v Municipal Tramways Trust |author=Cowen, Z |journal=Res Judicatae (University of Melbourne) |year=1941 |author-link=Zelman Cowan}} (1941) 2 Res Judicatae 91.
Brief overview
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 a person who is doing an unlawful act the protection of the general law imposing upon others duties of care for his safety."{{cite BAILII |litigants=Anderson v Cooke |year=2005 |court=IEHC |num=221 |date=29 June 2005 |courtname=auto}} per Finnegan P.
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,{{cite BAILII |litigants=Revill v Newbery |year=1995 |court=EWCA |division=Civ |num=10 |parallelcite=[1996] 1 All ER 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 defence of his home. In that case the plaintiff was also held liable for trespass.
See also
References
{{reflist|30em}}
Category:High Court of Australia cases
Category:1938 in Australian law
Category:Australian tort case law
{{Australia-law-stub}}