What is the ratio in Pitts v Hunt?

No duty of care is owed between participants in a joint criminal enterprise, and claims arising from such activity are barred by public policy under the ex turpi causa doctrine.

What did the court decide in Pitts v Hunt?

The Court of Appeal held that Pitts could not sue for negligence as both parties were engaged in joint criminal activity and public policy barred the claim.

Why is Pitts v Hunt important for negligence law?

It establishes important limits on negligence liability by showing how criminal conduct and public policy can prevent duty of care arising between joint participants in illegal activities.

What is the ratio in Pitts v Hunt?

No duty of care is owed between participants in a joint criminal enterprise, and claims arising from such activity are barred by public policy under the ex turpi causa doctrine.

What did the court decide in Pitts v Hunt?

The Court of Appeal held that Pitts could not sue for negligence as both parties were engaged in joint criminal activity and public policy barred the claim.

Why is Pitts v Hunt important for negligence law?

It establishes important limits on negligence liability by showing how criminal conduct and public policy can prevent duty of care arising between joint participants in illegal activities.

Tort1 min read

Pitts v Hunt

[1991] 1 QB 24Court of Appeal1991

Cite this case in OSCOLA →All Tort cases →

“No duty of care owed during joint criminal enterprise; ex turpi causa bars claim.”

Facts

Hunt (18) was riding his motorcycle with Pitts (18) as passenger. Both had been drinking and had no insurance or licence. Pitts encouraged Hunt to drive dangerously, racing and performing stunts. Hunt crashed and died; Pitts was seriously injured and sued Hunt's estate for negligence.

Issues

Whether a passenger who encourages dangerous and criminal driving can sue the driver for negligence when injured in the resulting accident, or whether public policy bars such a claim.

Held

The Court of Appeal held that Pitts' claim was barred by public policy (ex turpi causa non oritur actio). No duty of care was owed between participants in a joint criminal enterprise, and it would be contrary to public policy to allow recovery.

Significance

This case is crucial for understanding the limits of negligence liability in criminal contexts and the application of the ex turpi causa doctrine. It shows how public policy considerations can override normal negligence principles and remains important for studying the intersection between tort law and criminal law.

Read the full brief — free

You're reading the free summary of Pitts v Hunt. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.

Create free account Already have one? Sign in

No card required. Free forever.

OSCOLA Citation

Pitts v Hunt [1991] 1 QB 24

TortNegligenceEx turpi causaPublic policyCriminal lawJoint enterprise

Read the full judgment elsewhere

Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.

LLBGDL

More Tort cases

Jaqueline Casey & Ors v Environment Agency

[2026] EWHC 178 (KB)

Lepani Secake & Ors v Shared Services Connected Ltd

[2026] EWHC 1022 (KB)

Salford City Council v Fortis Developments Ltd & Ors

[2026] EWHC KB 702

Truter v Secretary of State for Justice

[2026] EWHC KB 825

CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

[2026] UKSC 5

Bromcom Computers Plc v Arbor Education Partners Ltd & Ors

[2026] EWHC KB 379

This case is reproduced verbatim from the public judgment published by The National Archives under the UK Government's Open Government Licence v3.0. If you appear in this case and believe it should not be published — for example because your conviction was quashed on appeal, you have statutory anonymity, or for other privacy reasons — request removal here.