Question

LEGAL PRINCIPLE: A right to action cannot arise out of an illegal activity.
FACTS: A and B were thieves engaged in stealing, cars and other vehicles. Once they stole a car. They engaged a driver to drive them through the city, since they did not know the route inside. The indicator lamp of the car was not working and the thieves had not realised this and , therefore, he had not told about it to the driver. While driving, through the city, the car was hit by another vehicle because of the faulty indicator. In the accident, the driver was injured and he filed a suit against A and B.
DECIDE.

• A. The driver would lose, because he was driving a stolen car
• B. The driver would win, because he was not a party to the stealing of the car
• C. The driver would win because he did not know anything about the stealing
• D. None of the above

Answer 1

The correct option is B The driver would win, because he was not a party to the stealing of the car

• The principle of ex turpi causa non oritur actio states that a plaintiff cannot seek legal remedy if the cause of action arises out of his own illegal activity. In the landmark case of Tinsel v Miligan this principle was elaborated as: no person should be benefited from his own wrongdoing or law cannot condone a wrong act.
  
• Therefore, the thieves should not be able to benefit from the suit but a driver who was not aware of the theft, is not involved in any illegal activity.