Morris v Murray
A passenger who agreed to fly in a light aircraft with a pilot he knew was very drunk had voluntarily accepted the risk of injury.
Facts
Mr Morris and Mr Murray spent the afternoon drinking together, and then decided to go for a flight in Mr Murray's light aircraft. Mr Morris drove them to the airfield and helped to start the engine. Mr Murray had drunk the equivalent of about 17 whiskies. Shortly after take off, the plane crashed, killing Mr Murray and seriously injuring Mr Morris. He sued Mr Murray's estate.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that the defence of volenti non fit injuria applied, so Mr Morris could not recover. Fox LJ said that Mr Morris knew that Mr Murray was very drunk, and that the flying of an aircraft by a drunken pilot was so obviously dangerous that, by taking part, he had accepted the risk of injury. He was not so drunk himself as to be incapable of appreciating the risk. The case was distinguished from road traffic cases, where the defence is excluded by statute.
Related cases on defences and damages
- Baker v TE Hopkins & Son Ltd [1959] 1 WLR 966
- Dann v Hamilton [1939] 1 KB 509
- Froom v Butcher [1976] QB 286
- Gray v Thames Trains Ltd [2009] UKHL 33, [2009] 1 AC 1339
- H West & Son Ltd v Shephard [1964] AC 326
- Haynes v Harwood [1935] 1 KB 146
- Henderson v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust [2020] UKSC 43, [2021] AC 563
- Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd v Shatwell [1965] AC 656
Studying tort law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
