Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

Morris v Murray

[1990] 3 All ER 801

Case summary last updated at 18/01/2020 17:37 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case Morris v Murray

P and D were drunk and went for a drive in D’s light aircraft, which D crashed, dying himself and P being injured. P sued D’s estate for his injuries, and D tried to raise either violenti non fit iniuria OR contributory negligence. CA held that the “violenti” defence succeeded, so that P’s damages were not recoverable. 

Fox LJ: The “violenti” defence succeeds because P was not so drunk as not to be aware of what D was doing e.g. he asked D to “radio in”. Therefore he was aware of what was happening, knew D had been heavily drinking, and must have been aware that this would impair D’s ability to fly. Therefore it can be implied that P was consenting to the risk. There is no suggestion that the 1988 Act (above) applies to planes. 

Have you seen Oxbridge Notes' best Tort Law study materials?

Our law notes have been a popular underground sensation for 10 years:

  • Written by Oxford & Cambridge prize-winning graduates
  • Includes copious adademic commentary in summary form
  • Concise structure relating cases and statutes into an easy-to-remember whole
  • Covers all major cases for LLB exams
  • Satisfaction guaranteed refund policy
  • Recently updated
Tort Law Notes

Tort Law Notes >>