Morris v Murray & Another
Citation : [1991] 2 QB 6
Jurisdiction : England and Wales
Appellant : Gary Morris (Accused in the court of first instance)
Respondent : Harry Murray & Another (Plaintiff in the court of first instance)
Facts :
The case revolves around an unfortunate accident where Gary Morris sued the estate of Harry Murray for injuries sustained in a plane crash. Murray, who had consumed a large quantity of alcohol (approximately 17 whiskies), invited Morris to fly in his light aircraft. Before the flight, both men were drinking at a pub. Despite Murray’s intoxicated state, Morris assisted him in preparing the aircraft for takeoff. Shortly after becoming airborne, the plane crashed, resulting in Murray’s death and severe injuries to Morris.
Issues :
1. Whether flying the aircraft while intoxicated would be considered Murray’s negligence?
2. Whether Morris was contributorily negligent by willingly participating in the flight?
3. Whether the legal principle of volenti non fit injuria (to a willing person, no injury is done) applied, meaning Morris voluntarily accepted the risk?
Decision :
The court found in favor of the defendants, who were administering Murray’s estate. The court concluded that the principle of volenti non fit injuria was indeed applicable in this situation. This meant that Morris had voluntarily assumed the risks associated with flying with an intoxicated pilot.
The court reasoned that Murray acted negligently by flying an aircraft after drinking a substantial amount of alcohol. Furthermore, the court determined that Morris was fully aware of Murray’s inebriated (being under the influence of alcohol to the point where it affects one’s judgment, coordination, or behavior) condition and the inherent dangers of flying under such circumstances. Despite this awareness, Morris actively assisted Murray in preparing for the flight, demonstrating his willingness to participate despite the obvious risks.
The court considered precedents such as Dann vs Hamilton, but distinguished them, finding the level of intoxication and Morris’s participation made this a case where the risk was voluntarily accepted.
Relevant Legal Principle :
1. Volenti Non Fit Injuria : ‘Volenti non fit injuria’ is a Latin legal maxim meaning “to a willing person, injury is not done.” It implies that if someone voluntarily consents to a risk or harm, they cannot later claim compensation for any resulting injury.
Author :
1. Rezwan Rasheed
Note: The Case Summary is a platform by the law students, for the law students. We aim to summarize the facts and decisions of various important cases in both Bangla and English with utmost caution. However, this platform is in no way a replacement for going through the complete judgements by the law students and we discourage any learner from relying on case summaries alone. Thank you
