“Volenti applies when plaintiff voluntarily assumes obvious and extreme risks despite intoxication.”
Murray and Morris spent an afternoon drinking heavily. Murray suggested flying in his light aircraft, and despite both being severely intoxicated, Morris agreed and helped prepare the plane. The aircraft crashed shortly after takeoff due to Murray's impaired flying, seriously injuring Morris who sued Murray's estate.
Whether the defence of volenti non fit injuria applied where the plaintiff, despite being intoxicated, participated in an obviously dangerous activity with full knowledge of the extreme risks involved.
The Court of Appeal held that the defence of volenti applied. Morris had voluntarily assumed the risk of flying with a drunk pilot, and his own intoxication did not prevent him from appreciating the obvious and extreme danger involved.
This case clarifies the scope of the volenti defence in extreme situations and shows that intoxication does not automatically prevent its application. It demonstrates the high threshold required for volenti to succeed and remains important for understanding the interaction between volenti and contributory negligence in tort law.
You're reading the free summary of Morris v Murray. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
Morris v Murray [1991] 2 QB 6
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.