What is the rule in Morris v Murray?

A person who knowingly embarks on a plainly dangerous activity may be treated as having accepted the risk—volenti can bar negligence.

Why did the volenti defence succeed?

The passenger knew the pilot was drunk, helped prepare the flight, and still flew. He willingly accepted an obvious and serious risk.

Does drinking by both parties matter?

Yes, it can show the plaintiff understood the danger. Here, heavy drinking made the risk clear and obvious.

Is mere knowledge always consent?

No. Knowledge must be coupled with a voluntary decision to face the risk. The facts showed strong, conscious acceptance.

How to use this case in exams?

Argue volenti when risk is extreme, obvious, and freely accepted—e.g., riding with a plainly unfit driver or pilot.

Morris v Murray [1990] 3 All ER 801

Volenti non fit injuria and risky choices: a passenger knowingly flies with a drunk pilot—can he still sue for negligence?

Torts Court of Appeal (E&W) 1990 [1990] 3 All ER 801 ~6 min read

Author

: Gulzar Hashmi

Location

: India

Primary Keywords

: volenti non fit injuria, assumption of risk, drunk pilot, consent

Secondary Keywords

: negligence defence, obvious risk, passenger awareness, intoxication

Publish Date

: 31 Oct 2025

Slug

: morris-v-murray-1990-3-all-er-801

Quick Summary

Morris v Murray holds that where a person knowingly joins a plainly dangerous activity—like flying with a drunk pilot—he may be treated as having accepted the risk. The negligence claim was barred by volenti non fit injuria.

Issues

Can the defendants rely on volenti non fit injuria to defeat a negligence claim after a drunk-pilot crash?

Rules

By embarking on the flight with knowledge of the pilot’s condition, the plaintiff implicitly accepted the risk of injury flowing from failures to fly with reasonable care.

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline of events leading to the flight and crash—Morris v Murray

Drinking Spree: Plaintiff and defendant drank heavily all afternoon.

Decision to Fly: They chose to take the defendant’s light aircraft.

Active Help: Plaintiff drove to the airfield and helped start and refuel the plane.

Crash: Soon after take-off, the aircraft crashed; pilot died and plaintiff was severely injured.

Evidence: Autopsy showed the pilot had consumed about 17 whiskies.

Claim/Defence: Plaintiff sued in negligence; defence pleaded volenti non fit injuria.

Arguments

Appellant / Plaintiff

The crash was due to the pilot’s lack of reasonable care.
I was injured and should recover despite the drinking context.

Respondent / Defendant

Plaintiff knew the pilot was drunk and still chose to fly.
Volenti: He accepted the risk; negligence is barred.

Judgment (Held)

Gavel and aircraft icon—judgment in Morris v Murray

Decision for the defendant. The plaintiff appreciated and accepted the obvious risk by joining the flight; volenti non fit injuria barred the negligence claim.

Key point: Extreme, obvious risk + voluntary participation = consent to the risk.
Outcome: No recovery for the plaintiff in negligence.

Ratio Decidendi

Where a claimant freely and knowingly takes part in an activity with an obvious, serious danger, the law may treat him as having agreed to bear that risk. Hence, volenti applies.

Why It Matters

Draws the line between knowledge + choice versus mere awareness.
Helpful for problems on drunk driving/flying and extreme sports.
Shows when volenti can fully defeat negligence claims.

Key Takeaways

Obvious + serious risk + voluntary choice → volenti.
Active participation strengthens the inference of consent.
Without clear consent, courts are slower to bar claims.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “Know it, Choose it, Own it.”

Step 1: Did the claimant know the danger?
Step 2: Did he choose to proceed anyway?
Step 3: If yes to both, he may own the risk: volenti bars the claim.

IRAC Outline

Issue: Does voluntary participation in a risky flight with a drunk pilot bar a negligence claim?

Rule: Volenti non fit injuria—freely accepting an obvious risk defeats recovery.

Application: Plaintiff drank with the pilot, drove to the airfield, helped prepare the plane, and knew the pilot was unfit; he still flew.

Conclusion: Claim barred by volenti; judgment for the defendant.

Glossary

Volenti Non Fit Injuria: “To the willing, no injury”: if you freely accept a known risk, you may not recover for resulting harm.
Assumption of Risk: Taking responsibility for a danger you understand and still choose to face.
Obvious Risk: A danger that a reasonable person would clearly recognise, e.g., flying with a very drunk pilot.