Pitts v Hunt and Another
[1991] 1 QB 24; [1990] 3 WLR 542; [1990] 3 All ER 344; [1990] RTR 290; (1990) 134 SJ 834
NEGLIGENCE, ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE, EX TURPI CAUSA, JOINT ILLEGAL ENTERPRISE, DEFENCE OF ILLEGALITY
Facts
The plaintiff was the pillion passenger on a motor cycle, involved in a collision with a vehicle driven by the second defendant, which resulted in the death of the motor cycle rider and serious injuries for the plaintiff. The plaintiff and the rider had been drinking before the accident and the plaintiff knew that the rider did not have a motorbike licence and insurance. The plaintiff was also encouraging the rider to drive recklessly. The plaintiff brought and action in negligence against the driver of the other vehicle and the first defendant, who was the deceased rider’s personal representative. The Queen’s Bench outright dismissed the claim against the second defendant and dismissed the claim against the first defendant, on grounds that the plaintiff was contributory negligent to the extent of 100 per cent. The plaintiff appealed the decision in regards to the first defendant.
Issues
(1) Does the rider of a motor bike owe a duty of care to their passengers when they are equally drunk and reckless?
(2) Does s. 148(3) Road Traffic Act 1972 preclude reliance on the defence of illegality?
Decision/Outcome
The appeal was dismissed.
(1) The plaintiff’s action arose directly ex turpi causa (out of his own illegal act) and therefore, he is prevented from recovering compensation from the first defendant.
(2) The words “agreement and understanding” in s. 148(3) Road Traffic Act 1972 do not contemplate an illegal agreement to carry out an illegal purpose and therefore, the section does not preclude reliance on a defence of illegality where the parties had expressly or tacitly agreed to engage in a joint illegal venture.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the decision in Pitts v Hunt [1991] 1 QB 24. The core principles remain good law, but readers should be aware of two important subsequent developments.
First, the section of the Road Traffic Act referred to in the article (s. 148(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1972) has been superseded. The equivalent provision is now found in s. 149 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which is the legislation currently in force. The court’s analysis of that provision and its interaction with the illegality defence remains relevant when read against the current statute.
Second, and more significantly, the defence of illegality (ex turpi causa non oritur actio) in tort has been substantially clarified by the Supreme Court in Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 51. The Supreme Court moved away from a rigid rules-based approach and adopted a more flexible, policy-based approach to the illegality defence, asking whether allowing the claim would be harmful to the integrity of the legal system. While Pitts v Hunt has not been overruled and the outcome in that case would likely remain the same on its facts, students should not treat the reasoning in Pitts v Hunt as fully representative of how courts now approach illegality in tort. The Patel v Mirza framework is the leading statement of the law and should be studied alongside this case.
