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.
