Morris v Murray [1991] 2 QB 6

Facts

  • The claimant and the pilot consumed substantial quantities of alcohol together before deciding to undertake a flight in a light aircraft.
  • The claimant assisted the pilot in traveling to the airfield and in preparing the aircraft for flight, including starting and refuelling.
  • Shortly after takeoff, the aircraft crashed; the pilot died and the claimant suffered severe injuries.
  • The claimant brought a negligence claim against the pilot's estate.
  • The initial trial found contributory negligence but rejected the defence of voluntary assumption of risk (volenti non fit injuria).
  • The Court of Appeal overturned the decision, finding that the claimant had voluntarily assumed the risk involved in flying with a drunk pilot.

Issues

  1. Whether the claimant, despite intoxication, had sufficient understanding and appreciation of the risk of flying with an intoxicated pilot to amount to voluntary acceptance of that risk.
  2. Whether the defence of volenti non fit injuria applies in this context, thereby absolving the defendant of liability for negligence.

Decision

  • The Court of Appeal held that the claimant was aware of the obvious danger of flying with an intoxicated pilot and consented to the risk.
  • The claimant's intoxication did not render him incapable of understanding and accepting the nature and extent of the danger.
  • The voluntary assumption of risk defence was successful, barring the claimant from recovering damages.
  • The decision distinguished the case from road traffic accident cases, in which the defence of volenti is generally unavailable due to statutory and policy considerations.

Legal Principles

  • The doctrine of volenti non fit injuria operates where a claimant has full knowledge and understanding of a specific risk and freely consents to accept it.
  • Intoxication does not necessarily negate capacity to appreciate or voluntarily assume obvious risks if the claimant's awareness is sufficient.
  • The limitation of the volenti defence in road traffic cases (due to statutes such as the Road Traffic Act 1972 and the rise of contributory negligence) does not extend to situations such as private flying.
  • Whether volenti applies depends on the claimant's actions and state of mind in each specific circumstance.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal in Morris v Murray established that voluntary assumption of risk can apply even when a claimant is intoxicated, provided there is sufficient appreciation and acceptance of the obvious danger involved; thus, the defendant was relieved from liability for negligence.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal