FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2012)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 4,184 times | Saved to 451 briefcases
Hall v Hebert, [1993] 2 SCR 159 (Link)


The plaintiff (P) and defendant (D) get drunk at a party. They get into D's muscle car. D stalls the car on a steep unlit gravel road, with a steep embankment on one side. D agrees to let P drive. P, in attThey try a rolling start. The car crashes. They think they are fine but P actually has sever head injuries. P sues the D for allowing him to drive in his intoxicated state


A person cannot recover in tort for the consequences of their own illegal or immoral acts.
** Rather than negating a duty of care, ex turpi causa is a narrowly defined defence that precludes recovery and is only applicable to cases where the plaintiff is attempting to profit from illegal conduct or evade criminal sanction.


A person can’t recover in tort for the consequences of their own illegal or immoral acts. This is intended to protect the integrity of the legal system.

McLaughlin J: Trying to ground it in a flexibility model, to prevent from benefiting financially for illegal activities. However, this does not necessarily limit you from redress for physical injuries.


  1. reasonable p 7

    This case always makes me chuckle.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to participate.

This document is a general discussion of certain legal and related issues and must not be relied upon as legal advice. This document may not have been written or reviewed by a legal practitioner. For more information, please see the website Terms of Service.