ex turpi causa non oritur actio

Ex turpi causa non oritur actio is a legal principle that means “from an unlawful cause, no action arises.” In the law of torts, this principle means that a person who has committed a wrong cannot claim compensation for the harm suffered as a result of that wrong. 

This principle is applicable in India, and it is an important legal doctrine that has been applied by courts in a variety of cases.

Meaning and Essentials of Ex Turpi Causa Non Oritur Actio in India

Ex turpi causa non oritur actio is a legal maxim that means that no action can arise from an unlawful cause. This principle is based on the fundamental legal principle that a person should not be allowed to benefit from their own wrongs. In the law of torts, this principle means that a person who has committed a wrong cannot claim compensation for the harm suffered as a result of that wrong.

Essentially, ex turpi causa non oritur actio has two key components. Firstly, there must be an unlawful cause, which means that the act in question must be illegal or contrary to public policy. Secondly, there must be a harm suffered as a result of that act. If these two conditions are satisfied, then this principle applies.

Applications of Ex Turpi Causa Non Oritur Actio in India

Ex turpi causa non oritur actio has been applied in a variety of cases in India. Some illustrations are discussed below:

A drunk driver causes a car accident

In this scenario, the driver who caused the accident is clearly at fault. However, if the driver was drunk at the time of the accident, they may be unable to bring a claim for their own injuries. This is because their illegal conduct (drunk driving) was the cause of the accident. The principle of ex turpi causa non oritur actio would prevent the driver from recovering damages for their injuries.

An employee injured while committing a crime

An employee who is injured while committing a crime may be prevented from bringing a claim for damages. For example, if an employee is injured while breaking into their employer’s office to steal confidential information, this principle may prevent the employee from recovering damages for their injuries. This is because the employee’s conduct was illegal and immoral.

A pedestrian hit by a jaywalking pedestrian

In this scenario, if the pedestrian who was hit by the jaywalking pedestrian was also jaywalking at the time of the accident, the principle of ex turpi causa non oritur actio may prevent the injured pedestrian from recovering damages for their injuries. This is because the injured pedestrian’s illegal conduct contributed to the accident, and it would be unjust to allow them to benefit from their own wrongful conduct.

A drug dealer injured during a drug deal

In this scenario, a drug dealer who is injured during a drug deal may be unable to bring a claim for damages. This is because their conduct was illegal and immoral. The principle of ex turpi causa non oritur actio would prevent the drug dealer from recovering damages for their injuries.

These illustrations demonstrate how this principle can be applied in different situations. 

However, it is important to note that each case is unique and requires careful analysis of the facts and circumstances. The principle of ex turpi causa non oritur actio is not absolute, and there are exceptions and tests that can be applied to determine whether a plaintiff should be allowed to recover damages despite their own wrongful conduct.

Tests of Ex Turpi Causa Non Oritur Actio in India

The application of the principle of ex turpi causa non oritur actio is not absolute. The courts have recognized that there may be situations where the principle should not apply. In such cases, the courts have developed a variety of tests to determine whether this principle applies. Some of these tests are discussed below:

Test of Reliance

The test of reliance is used to determine whether the plaintiff’s claim is based on their own illegal or immoral conduct. Under this test, if the plaintiff‘s claim is based on their own illegal or immoral conduct, then the principle of ex turpi causa non oritur actio would apply. However, if the plaintiff’s claim is not based on their own illegal or immoral conduct, then this principle would not apply.

In some cases, a plaintiff’s illegal or immoral conduct may not have been the cause of their injuries. For example, if a construction worker is injured due to a defective piece of equipment, their illegal drug use would not have caused the accident. 

In such cases, the Test of Reliance may be applied, which looks at whether the plaintiff’s illegal conduct was a necessary condition for their injuries. If the plaintiff’s illegal conduct was not a necessary condition, the principle of ex turpi causa non oritur actio may not apply.

The Principle of No Benefit

The principle of no benefit is used to determine whether the plaintiff would benefit from their own illegal or immoral conduct if they were allowed to bring a claim. Under this principle, if the plaintiff would benefit from their own illegal or immoral conduct if they were allowed to bring a claim, then the principle of ex turpi causa non oritur actio would apply. However, if the plaintiff would not benefit from their own illegal or immoral conduct, then this principle would not apply.

Under this principle, a plaintiff may be prevented from recovering damages if doing so would benefit them in some way as a result of their illegal conduct. For example, if a burglar sues the homeowner for injuries sustained while committing a burglary, the plaintiff would be benefiting from their illegal conduct, and the principle of ex turpi causa non oritur actio may prevent them from recovering damages.

The Proportionality Test

The proportionality test is used to determine whether the plaintiff’s illegal conduct is so severe that it should bar them from bringing a claim. Under this test, if the plaintiff’s illegal conduct is so severe that it outweighs the harm suffered, thenthis principle would apply. However, if the harm suffered is so severe that it outweighs the plaintiff’s illegal conduct, then the principle of ex turpi causa non oritur actio would not apply.

This test looks at whether the plaintiff’s illegal conduct was proportionate to the defendant’s conduct. For example, if a person is injured while trespassing on someone else’s property, the defendant’s conduct may have been relatively minor (such as posting a “No Trespassing” sign). In such cases, the principle of ex turpi causa non oritur actio may not apply if the plaintiff’s illegal conduct was disproportionate to the defendant’s conduct.

Inextricably Linked Test

The inextricably linked test is used to determine whether the plaintiff’s claim is so closely connected to their illegal conduct that the two cannot be separated. Under this test, if the plaintiff’s claim is so closely connected to their illegal conduct that the two cannot be separated, then this principle would apply. However, if the plaintiff’s claim can be separated from their illegal conduct, then the principle of ex turpi causa non oritur actio would not apply.

This test looks at whether the plaintiff’s illegal conduct was inextricably linked to their injuries. For example, if a person is injured while driving under the influence of alcohol, the principle of ex turpi causa non oritur actio may not apply if their injuries were caused by something other than their intoxication (such as a defective road).

Public Conscience Test

The public conscience test is used to determine whether allowing the plaintiff to bring a claim would be contrary to public policy. Under this test, if allowing the plaintiff to bring a claim would be contrary to public policy, then this principle would apply. However, if allowing the plaintiff to bring a claim would not be contrary to public policy, then the principle of ex turpi causa non oritur actio would not apply.

This test looks at whether allowing the plaintiff to recover damages would be against public policy. For example, if a person is injured while committing a hate crime, allowing them to recover damages may be against public policy. The Public Conscience Test allows courts to consider whether a plaintiff’s illegal or immoral conduct was so egregious that it would be against public policy to allow them to recover damages.

Exceptions to the Principle of Ex Turpi Causa Non Oritur Actio

While the principle of ex turpi causa non oritur actio is a fundamental principle of tort law, there are certain exceptions to the principle that allow a plaintiff to bring a claim despite their illegal or immoral conduct. These exceptions are based on the idea that in certain situations, it would be unjust to deny a plaintiff the right to bring a claim.

Public Interest

One exception to this principle is the public interest exception. Under this exception, if allowing the plaintiff to bring a claim would serve a public interest, then the principle of ex turpi causa non oritur actio would not apply.

For example, in a case, if the plaintiff was seeking compensation for injuries suffered as a result of police brutality. The defendant argued that the plaintiff had been engaged in an illegal act at the time of the incident and therefore the principle of ex turpi causa non oritur actio applied. However, the court held that allowing the plaintiff to bring a claim would serve a public interest in holding the police accountable for their actions.

Victimless Crimes

Another exception to the principle of ex turpi causa non oritur actio is for victimless crimes. Under this exception, if the plaintiff’s illegal conduct did not harm anyone else, then this principle would not apply.

For example, in a case, if the plaintiff was seeking compensation for injuries suffered as a result of a car accident. The defendant argued that the plaintiff was driving without a valid license and therefore the principle of ex turpi causa non oritur actio applied. However, the court held that the plaintiff’s lack of a valid license did not harm anyone else, and therefore this principle did not apply.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the principle of ex turpi causa non oritur actio is a fundamental principle of tort law in India. The principle states that a plaintiff cannot bring a claim if their claim is based on illegal or immoral conduct. However, there are certain tests and exceptions to this principle that allow a plaintiff to bring a claim despite their illegal or immoral conduct. It is important to note that the application of this principle is highly fact-specific and requires a careful analysis of the circumstances of each case.

As a general rule, the principle of ex turpi causa non oritur actio is intended to prevent a plaintiff from benefiting from their own illegal or immoral conduct. However, the principle should not be applied in a way that results in a denial of justice. Courts must balance the interests of the parties involved and consider whether applying the principle would result in an unjust outcome.