## Facts

- Mark Pitts was a passenger on a motorcycle driven by David Hunt.
- Both Pitts and Hunt had been drinking excessively before the accident.
- Hunt was unlicensed and uninsured when driving the motorcycle.
- The pair engaged in reckless driving, leading to a fatal collision.
- Hunt died as a result of the accident; Pitts survived and sought damages for his injuries.
- Both parties were complicit in the illegal conduct, including intoxication and reckless operation of the motorcycle.

## Issues

1. Whether participation in a joint illegal enterprise bars a claimant from recovering damages in negligence.
2. Whether public policy considerations prevent a claimant from benefiting from their own unlawful conduct.
3. Whether contributory negligence or comparative fault principles should affect a claim arising from joint illegal activity.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held that the doctrine of ex turpi causa non oritur actio barred Pitts from recovering damages.
- The court found Pitts' participation in the illegal activity was directly connected to his injuries.
- Public policy considerations were found to outweigh individual claims for compensation in cases of joint illegal enterprise.
- The court rejected the application of contributory negligence or apportionment under comparative fault, holding that the doctrine operated as a complete bar to recovery.

## Legal Principles

- The doctrine of ex turpi causa non oritur actio prevents a claimant from recovering for harm suffered in connection with their own illegal or immoral conduct.
- The doctrine operates as a complete defense to a negligence claim where the claimant’s involvement in illegality is closely connected to the injury.
- Participation in a joint illegal enterprise nullifies possible recovery for damages arising out of that enterprise, regardless of degree of fault or potential apportionment.
- Public policy aims to deter individuals from engaging in illegal activity and protects the integrity of the legal system.

## Conclusion

Pitts v Hunt clarified that participation in a joint illegal enterprise precludes claims for negligence-related damages, as the close connection between the illegal conduct and the harm suffered engages the ex turpi causa doctrine and public policy forbids recovery.


Pitts v Hunt [1991] 1 QB 24