Tort - Ex Turpi Causa
Ex
turpi causa non oritur actio or ex turpi causa for short simply means that when
the plaintiff has committed an illegal act, he cannot claim a legal remedy i.e.
where the act is illegal a legal remedy is not available. Another way of
looking at it is that no man should be allowed to profit from his crime.
In
Ashton and Turner (1981) the plaintiff was a passenger in a car that the
defendant was driving. The pair had jointly committed a burglary and the
defendant was drunk at the time. The car they were driving in subsequently
crashed and the plaintiff sued. The court held that the principle of ex turpi
causa prevented him from claiming.
In
Meah v McCreamer (No. 1) (1985) the plaintiff suffered severe head injuries as
a result of a road accident caused by the plaintiff’s negligence that
subsequently resulted in a change of personality. He became a sexual predator
and was eventually convicted of sexually assaulting two women and causing
injury to a third. The plaintiff sued the defendant on the grounds that had it
not been for the defendant’s negligence the plaintiff would not have undergone
the personality change. On the contention that such personality changes were
not foreseeable the thin skull rule applied i.e. you take your victim as you
find them. The plaintiff was successful.
In
Meah v McCreamer (No. 2) (1986) two of the women that the plaintiff had
assaulted brought an action to recover from the plaintiff damages for the
injuries that they had suffered. The women were successful. The plaintiff
subsequently sought to recover the damages from the defendant but the court
denied the plaintiff’s claim citing the principle of ex turpi causa - where the
act is illegal, a legal remedy is not available.
In
Pitt v Hunt (1990) the defendant aged 16 gave the plaintiff aged 18 a ride on
his motorbike. The defendant neither had insurance nor had he paid road tax and
was on a bike with a much bigger engine than someone his age was allowed to be
on. In addition to that both the plaintiff and the defendant were drunk and
witnesses gave evidence that they were riding recklessly on the road. There was
an accident and the defendant was killed while the plaintiff suffered serious
injuries. The plaintiff sued. The court held that there was no duty of care
that was owed to the plaintiff by the defendant and the maxim of ex turpi causa
prevented a duty of care from arising.
In
Kirkham v Chief Constable of the Greater Manchester Police (1990) the plaintiff
was the wife of a prisoner. The prisoner was an alcoholic who suffered from
prolonged depression with suicidal tendencies and given his condition there was
a real likelihood that he would commit suicide.
The
police when they apprehended the prisoner were aware of the facts but failed to
pass them on to the prison authorities and the defendant while in prison
committed suicide. The plaintiff sued and the defendants relied on the defense
of volenti and ex turpi causa.
The
plaintiff was successful. The defense of volenti was rejected because it was
only applicable to those who did not suffer from any type of psychological or
mental illness i.e. those who were sound of mind and ex turpi causa only
concerned those who had committed an illegal act and suicide was not illegal
(Suicide Act 1961 decriminalized the act of suicide in England and Wales).
If
the prison authorities had known that the defendant had suicidal tendencies or
was likely to commit suicide, they could have taken steps to ensure that it did
not happen for example by putting him in a secure cell or by keeping a closer
eye on him. Therefore, it is quite possible to say with some certainty that the
prisoner would not have committed suicide but for the defendants’ actions or
omissions.
In
Clunis v Camden & Islington Health Authority (1998) the plaintiff was
detained in a mental hospital prior to release and soon after his release, the
plaintiff stabbed a man to death and was convicted for manslaughter. The
plaintiff brought an action against the defendants claiming that he shouldn’t
have been released from a mental hospital and it was his release that had
provoked the stabbing and as a consequence he was now incarcerated and
therefore he should be compensated accordingly by the defendants for
negligently releasing him. The plaintiff was unsuccessful and the principle of
ex turpi causa negated liability.
In
Vellino v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester (2002) the plaintiff was a
known criminal who had been arrested on numerous occasions. He had a propensity
to try and escape but the police failed to take the necessary precautions to
prevent him from escaping. The plaintiff was taken into custody and he
attempted to escape by jumping off the second floor. He suffered serious
injuries to the head, back and neck and sued the police for negligence or for
not taking the necessary precautions to prevent him from escaping. Applying the
maxim of ex turpi causa the court denied the plaintiff’s claim.
In
Gray v Thames Trains (2009) the plaintiff suffered serious injuries in a rail
crash but despite that went on to kill another person. The plaintiff was
subsequently detained in a facility for the mentally ill and while in detention
he brought an action to claim damages for the injuries that he had sustained.
The plaintiff’s claim was denied and the maxim of ex turpi causa was applied.
In
Joyce v O’Brien & Tradex Insurance (2013) two men after committing a
burglary tried to make a getaway in a van. The plaintiff fell off the van while
they were trying to escape and sued his uncle, the driver of the van, for
negligence. The uncle pleaded guilty to driving dangerously. The plaintiff was
unsuccessful. The court held that, given the severity of the offence, the
doctrine of ex turpi causa would apply. The plaintiff cannot recover damages
for injuries that are a consequence of his own criminal act.
Copyright
© 2019 by Dyarne Ward
Comments
Post a Comment