Pitts v Hunt
A pillion passenger who encouraged a drunk, unlicensed rider to drive dangerously could not recover for his injuries, because of the defence of illegality.
Facts
Mr Pitts, aged 18, was a pillion passenger on a motorcycle ridden by Mr Hunt, aged 16, who had no licence or insurance, as Mr Pitts knew. They had been drinking together at a disco. On the way home, Mr Hunt rode the motorcycle in a reckless manner, to frighten other road users, encouraged by Mr Pitts. The motorcycle collided with a car, killing Mr Hunt and injuring Mr Pitts. He sued Mr Hunt's estate.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that Mr Pitts could not recover, because the defence of illegality, ex turpi causa non oritur actio, applied. The claimant and the defendant were engaged in a joint illegal enterprise of dangerous driving, and the circumstances made it impossible to determine an appropriate standard of care. Balcombe LJ said that it would be impossible to determine the standard of care that should apply between participants in such a joint criminal enterprise. The defence of volenti did not apply, because it was excluded by the Road Traffic Act in relation to passengers in motor vehicles, and the trial judge's finding of 100 per cent contributory negligence was not possible.
Related cases on defences and damages
- Baker v TE Hopkins & Son Ltd [1959] 1 WLR 966
- Dann v Hamilton [1939] 1 KB 509
- Froom v Butcher [1976] QB 286
- Gray v Thames Trains Ltd [2009] UKHL 33, [2009] 1 AC 1339
- H West & Son Ltd v Shephard [1964] AC 326
- Haynes v Harwood [1935] 1 KB 146
- Henderson v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust [2020] UKSC 43, [2021] AC 563
- Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd v Shatwell [1965] AC 656
Studying tort law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
