The Getaway Crash: Ashton v Turner (1981)
Case Essentials
Citation: Ashton v Turner [1981] 1 QB 137
Court: High Court (England)
Plaintiff: Mr. Ashton (The passenger and accomplice)
Defendant: Mr. Turner (The getaway driver)
The Story Behind the Case
Ashton and Turner committed a burglary together. To escape the scene, they sped away in a getaway car with Turner behind the wheel. During the frantic, high-speed escape, Turner lost control and crashed the vehicle, severely injuring Ashton. Surprisingly, Ashton decided to sue his own getaway driver for negligence, arguing that Turner owed him a duty of care to drive safely.
Facts
The plaintiff was injured in a car crash caused by the defendant’s reckless driving. At the time of the crash, both men were actively fleeing the scene of a burglary they had just committed together.
Issue
Does a getaway driver owe a legal duty of care to their accomplice, and can a participant in a serious crime sue their partner for negligence?
Rule
The defence of Ex turpi causa non oritur actio (no action arises from an illegal act) applies. The law refuses to recognize a duty of care between criminals engaged in a joint illegal enterprise.
Analysis
The court ruled that public policy strictly forbids the legal system from settling disputes between criminals regarding how carefully they carry out a crime. It is impossible, and legally absurd, to try and establish a “reasonable standard of care” for a getaway driver fleeing a burglary. Because the injury occurred while both men were actively participating in a serious criminal act, the court refused to hear the claim. The judge also noted that even if a duty of care could somehow exist, the plaintiff had completely and willingly assumed the extreme risks of a criminal escape.
Case Outcome: The defence of Ex turpi causa was UPHELD. The court ruled in favor of the defendant, establishing that criminals cannot claim compensation from one another for injuries sustained during a joint criminal enterprise.