## 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.


Morris v Murray [1991] 2 QB 6