Professor Goodhart's prophecy was soon borne out, for, in 1935, in Haynes v. Harwood[97], the principles as explained and elaborated by Professor Goodhart were, in substance, adopted by the Court of Appeal. In that case, a horse van driven by the defendant's servant was negligently left unattended and the horses bolted down a street frequented by people including many children. At the time the plaintiff, a police officer, was in a police station fronting the street and in that position was in no danger whatever. Apprehending serious injury to women and children who were in the path of the bolting horse, he ran out of the station and crossed the street, pushed out of the way a woman who was in grave danger, and succeeded in pulling up the horses. But he was badly injured in doing so. Finlay J. and the Court of Appeal held that he was entitled to recover against the defendant, who was guilty of primary negligence in leaving the horses unattended. I desire to quote one passage from the judgment of Finlay J. because it illustrates how in some cases it is impossible to resist the inference of a pre-existing duty at least towards parents. In Cutler's Case, Slesser L.J. had said: - "There may be cases where, for example, a man sees his child in great peril in the street and, moved by paternal affection, dashes out and holds a runaway horse's head in order to save his child, and is injured; there there is no novus actus interveniens"[98].