Ex Turpi Causa Non Oritur Actio | Civil Law for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Ex Turpi Causa Non Oritur Actio

• The legal principle "Ex turpi causa non oritur actio" means "from an unlawful cause, no action arises."
• In tort law, this principle prohibits a person who has committed a wrong from claiming compensation for harm resulting from that wrong.

Meaning and Essentials in India

• This principle ensures that individuals do not benefit from their own wrongful actions.
• It requires an unlawful cause and harm resulting from that cause for the principle to apply.

Applications of Ex Turpi Causa Non Oritur Actio in India

• Drunk Driver Causes a Car Accident: When a driver causes an accident while being intoxicated, they may not be able to claim damages for their injuries due to their illegal behavior of drunk driving.
• Employee Injured While Committing a Crime: If an employee gets injured while engaging in criminal activities like breaking into their employer's office, they may be barred from seeking damages for their injuries.
• Pedestrian Hit by a Jaywalking Pedestrian: If a pedestrian who was hit by another jaywalking pedestrian was also jaywalking, they might be prevented from recovering damages due to their own illegal actions contributing to the accident.
• Drug Dealer Injured During a Drug Deal: A drug dealer injured during a drug deal may not be able to claim damages because their involvement in illegal activities disqualifies them from seeking compensation.

These examples showcase how the principle of ex turpi causa non oritur actio is employed in various scenarios. It is essential to recognize that each case warrants a thorough examination of the facts and context. While the principle is generally applied, exceptions exist, and specific tests are utilized to determine if a plaintiff should be entitled to damages despite their wrongful actions.

Tests of Ex Turpi Causa Non Oritur Actio in India

Test of Reliance

• The Test of Reliance is employed to ascertain if the plaintiff's claim is rooted in their own illegal or immoral actions. If the claim is indeed based on such conduct, the principle of ex turpi causa non oritur actio applies. However, if the claim is unrelated to their illegal behaviors, this principle does not hold.
• For instance, if a person who illegally consumes drugs is injured due to a faulty piece of equipment at work, the Test of Reliance would investigate whether the illegal drug use was a necessary factor in causing the accident.

The Principle of No Benefit

• The Principle of No Benefit is utilized to determine if the plaintiff would gain from their own illegal or immoral actions by filing a claim. If the plaintiff stands to benefit from such actions, the principle of ex turpi causa non oritur actio is applicable.
• For example, if a burglar sues a homeowner for injuries sustained during a burglary, this principle would prevent the burglar from receiving damages as it would be seen as benefiting from the illegal act.

The Proportionality Test

• The Proportionality Test evaluates whether the plaintiff's illegal conduct is so significant that it should disqualify them from making a claim. If the severity of the plaintiff's illegal actions outweighs the harm suffered, then the principle applies.
• For instance, if a person trespasses on someone's property and gets injured while the property owner had minimal safeguards in place, the principle may not apply if the trespasser's actions were disproportionate to the property owner's measures.

Inextricably Linked Test

• The Inextricably Linked Test is employed to determine if the plaintiff's claim is so closely tied to their illegal actions that they cannot be separated. If the claim and illegal conduct are inseparable, the principle applies.
• For example, if a person is injured while driving under the influence of alcohol, but the injury was caused by a road defect rather than intoxication, the principle may not apply as the illegal conduct was not directly linked to the injury.

Public Conscience Test

• The Public Conscience Test is used to assess whether permitting the plaintiff to make a claim goes against public policy. If allowing the claim would contradict public policy, the principle applies.
• For instance, if an individual is injured while committing a hate crime, enabling them to claim damages might be against public policy. This test allows courts to consider if the plaintiff's actions were so egregious that awarding damages would be against public interest.

Exceptions to the Principle of Ex Turpi Causa Non Oritur Actio

Public Interest

• One exception to the principle of ex turpi causa non oritur actio is the public interest exception.
• When allowing the plaintiff to bring a claim serves a public interest, the principle does not apply.
• For instance, if a plaintiff seeks compensation for injuries due to police brutality, despite engaging in an illegal act, the court may uphold the claim to hold the police accountable.

Victimless Crimes

• Another exception is for victimless crimes.
• If the plaintiff's illegal conduct does not harm others, the principle of ex turpi causa non oritur actio does not apply.
• For example, in a case involving a car accident, if the plaintiff lacked a valid license but the lack of the license did not harm anyone else, the principle would not prevent the plaintiff from seeking compensation for their injuries.

Conclusion

• In conclusion, the ex turpi causa non oritur actio principle stands as a fundamental tenet in Indian tort law. This principle asserts that a plaintiff cannot initiate a claim if it stems from illegal or immoral behavior. Nevertheless, there are specific tests and exceptions to this principle that permit a plaintiff to pursue a claim despite engaging in such conduct. It's crucial to emphasize that the application of this principle depends heavily on the particulars of each case, necessitating a thorough examination of the circumstances.
• In essence, the ex turpi causa non oritur actio principle is designed to prevent a plaintiff from gaining advantages through their own illegal or immoral actions. However, it is essential for the principle not to be applied in a manner that leads to a denial of justice. Courts must weigh the interests of the parties involved and assess whether the application of the principle would result in an unjust outcome.