The Joint Illegal Enterprise: Pitts v Hunt (1990)
Case Essentials
Citation: Pitts v Hunt [1990] 1 QB 302
Court: Court of Appeal (England)
Plaintiff: Mr. Pitts (The motorcycle passenger)
Defendant: Mr. Hunt’s Estate (The motorcycle driver)
The Story Behind the Case
After an evening of heavy drinking, Pitts and Hunt got onto a motorcycle driven by Hunt. Pitts knew Hunt was highly intoxicated and did not have a motorcycle license or insurance. Despite this, Pitts encouraged Hunt to drive recklessly, weaving into oncoming traffic just to frighten other drivers. Predictably, they crashed into an oncoming car. Hunt was killed, and Pitts was left permanently disabled. Pitts sued Hunt’s estate for negligence. Hunt’s estate argued they were both committing a serious crime together, so Pitts shouldn’t be allowed to claim compensation.
Facts
The plaintiff was a willing passenger on a motorcycle driven by a highly intoxicated defendant. Both were actively encouraging each other to drive recklessly and illegally when they crashed.
Issue
Can a plaintiff claim damages for injuries sustained while actively participating in a serious joint criminal enterprise with the defendant?
Rule
This case centers on the defence of Ex turpi causa non oritur actio (no action can arise from an illegal act). Additionally, under the Road Traffic Act, a driver cannot use the defence of Volenti non fit injuria against a passenger.
Analysis
The court held that because the Road Traffic Act explicitly prevents drivers from using the Volenti (consent) defence against passengers, the defendant had to rely on Ex turpi causa. The judges ruled that since both men were engaged in a joint illegal enterprise (the serious criminal offenses of drunk and dangerous driving), it was impossible for the court to determine a standard of care. Furthermore, public policy strictly dictates that the legal system will not assist a claimant trying to get compensation for injuries that resulted directly from their own active participation in a serious crime.
Case Outcome: The defence of Ex turpi causa was UPHELD (and Volenti was barred by statute). The court ruled in favor of the defendant, establishing that a plaintiff cannot recover damages when the injury arises from their own serious illegal conduct.