Welcome

Pitts v Hunt [1991] 1 QB 24

ResourcesPitts v Hunt [1991] 1 QB 24

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.
  • 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.

Assistant

Responses can be incorrect. Please double check.