Pitts 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.

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.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal