Morris v Murray [1990] 3 All ER 801

• Plaintiff and Defendant were drunk and went for a drive in Defendant’s light aircraft, which Defendant crashed, dying himself and Plaintiff being injured.

• Plaintiff sued Defendant’s estate for his injuries, and Defendant tried to raise either violenti non fit iniuria OR contributory negligence.

• CA held that the “violenti” defence succeeded, so that Plaintiff’s damages were not recoverable. 

Fox LJ

• The “violenti” defence succeeds because Plaintiff was not so drunk as not to be aware of what Defendant was doing, e.g. he asked Defendant to “radio in”.

• Therefore he was aware of what was happening, knew Defendant had been heavily drinking, and must have been aware that this would impair Defendant’s ability to fly. Therefore it can be implied that Plaintiff was consenting to the risk.

• There is no suggestion that the 1988 Act (above) applies to planes.