Introduction
The case of Revill v Newbery [1996] 2 WLR 239 concerns the intersection of tort law, specifically negligence, occupiers' liability, and the doctrine of ex turpi causa non oritur actio. This principle, often referred to as ex turpi causa, dictates that a cause of action cannot be founded on an illegal act. The core issue centers on whether a property occupier, who injures a trespasser while attempting to protect his property, can rely on the trespasser's illegal conduct to avoid liability. The technical requirements of occupiers' liability under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 place a specific duty of care on landowners towards those who may be trespassing on their premises. The ruling in Revill v Newbery established that while the conduct of a trespasser is relevant in assessing contributory negligence, it does not provide a complete defense against a claim resulting from an occupier's negligent actions. The formal legal analysis thus considers the balance between property rights, personal safety, and the public policy consideration of not rewarding criminal activity.
The Facts of Revill v Newbery
The factual circumstances in Revill v Newbery are crucial to understanding the court’s reasoning. Mr. Newbery (N) resided on an allotment and, to safeguard his possessions, often slept in a shed located on the property. Mr. Revill (R) and his accomplice, Mr. Grainger (G), trespassed onto N's allotment with the apparent intention of breaking into the shed. N, upon hearing the intruders, fired a 12-bore shotgun through a hole in the shed. His intention, according to his testimony, was to scare away the trespassers rather than injure them. However, the shot struck R, causing injury. R subsequently brought a personal injury action against N, asserting negligence and breach of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984. The legal arguments thus hinged on the application of the 1984 Act, the common law duty of care, and the effect of R’s illegal actions on his claim. N, in his defense, invoked the ex turpi causa doctrine and alleged contributory negligence on the part of R due to his trespass.
Occupiers' Liability and Duty of Care
The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 establishes a framework for the duty of care that an occupier owes to those who are not lawful visitors. Prior to the 1984 Act, a different set of legal principles applied towards trespassers, often treating them as essentially without recourse for any harm suffered while trespassing on a property. This legislation changed that position, creating a specific duty to take reasonable care to avoid injury to non-visitors in certain circumstances. The Act imposes a duty when an occupier knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe, that a person is in the vicinity of a danger and they have the means to provide protection against that danger. In the context of Revill v Newbery, the court considered whether N had failed to meet the reasonable standard of care by firing a shotgun through the shed without properly identifying the specific position of the trespassers, even if he only meant to frighten them. This requirement focuses on balancing the rights of property owners to protect their land with the need to prevent foreseeable harm to individuals, including trespassers, who may be present on the premises. The Court of Appeal determined that the lower court judge had correctly identified that N’s actions did not meet the requisite standard of care expected of a reasonable person in similar circumstances.
The Doctrine of Ex Turpi Causa Non Oritur Actio
The principle of ex turpi causa non oritur actio, often referred to as the ex turpi causa doctrine, generally prevents a claimant from obtaining legal remedy if their cause of action stems from their own illegal or immoral conduct. This doctrine is rooted in public policy, designed to prevent the courts from appearing to condone criminal activity or providing benefits to those acting unlawfully. N, in Revill v Newbery, attempted to utilize this doctrine as a full defense against R’s claim, stating that R’s injury was a direct result of his own trespass and attempted burglary. The crucial legal question centered on whether the doctrine should provide a complete bar to liability in this specific case, where the occupier had employed an excessive and unreasonable use of force causing injury. The Court of Appeal considered the fact that denying a plaintiff remedy as a result of their wrongdoing differs significantly from the situation of compensating a plaintiff for injury that they are lawfully entitled to claim for. The judgement affirmed that while the criminal conduct of R was a factor in the assessment of damages, it did not absolve N of his duty to exercise a reasonable standard of care, under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984.
Contributory Negligence and Damages
While the Court of Appeal in Revill v Newbery rejected the ex turpi causa defense as a complete bar, they did acknowledge the relevance of R's illegal conduct in the context of contributory negligence. Contributory negligence refers to the principle that a claimant’s own conduct may have contributed to the injuries that they have suffered. This does not mean that the claimant loses their right to claim compensation, but it does mean that the amount of compensation they may receive is reduced to reflect the extent that their conduct contributed to their harm. The court considered R’s criminal act of trespass and attempted burglary as significant factors that contributed to his injury and, therefore, agreed with the trial judge's decision to reduce the damages awarded to R. The principle behind this reduction is that an individual should not benefit from their illegal activity, even when a defendant is negligent. It serves as a method to allocate responsibility fairly and proportionally, taking into account the conduct of all parties involved in the incident. The court is effectively balancing the fact that while N was negligent in his actions, R was clearly also responsible for the situation through his own illegal behaviour.
Outcome and Legal Significance
The Court of Appeal dismissed N's appeal in Revill v Newbery, upholding the trial court's decision that N was negligent in the manner that he used his firearm and could not rely on the ex turpi causa doctrine as a full defense to his liability. The case has significant implications for both occupiers’ liability and the application of the ex turpi causa principle. The court made it clear that an occupier does not have the right to treat a trespasser as a person with no legal rights. An occupier has a responsibility to take reasonable steps to prevent injury, even to those who have no permission to be on their property. This principle limits the capacity of occupiers to employ excessive force in protecting their property, especially if they create a known risk of serious injury. The case confirms that the doctrine of ex turpi causa is not a blanket defense against all claims where the claimant has participated in unlawful activities. Rather, the law requires careful consideration of the specific circumstances and the conduct of all parties involved. The precedent established in this case continues to inform legal analysis concerning the duties and responsibilities of property owners towards trespassers under the 1984 Act, clarifying the scope and limits of the ex turpi causa doctrine.
Conclusion
The ruling in Revill v Newbery stands as a key case demonstrating the interaction between the duty of care an occupier owes to a trespasser under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 and the limitations of the ex turpi causa doctrine. The court carefully balanced the fact that while an individual’s illegal activity may play a part in their injury and be considered in terms of contributory negligence, it does not completely absolve an occupier from their responsibility to take reasonable care and not to injure individuals through negligent action on their property. The case clarifies that while the legal system does not reward criminal acts, it also does not allow property owners to apply excessive force. This cross-topic connection between occupiers’ liability and the legal implications of illegal conduct clarifies that both aspects of the situation must be evaluated to arrive at a fair judgement, even when an individual has acted illegally. Specifically, the judgement emphasizes the need to assess whether the occupier acted reasonably in the particular circumstances, rather than simply relying on the fact that the claimant was a trespasser to remove all liability.
