Morris v Murray is a landmark case in UK tort law, dealing primarily with the defence of volenti non fit injuria (voluntary assumption of risk) in the context of negligence claims. The case revolves around a serious aircraft accident caused by the pilot’s intoxication and the subsequent claim for damages by the injured passenger. The Court of Appeal’s decision in Morris v Murray is notable for its clarification on how voluntary risk acceptance operates as a defence to negligence, especially when the claimant knowingly exposes themselves to obvious dangers.
Facts of Morris v Murray Case
In Morris v Murray, both the claimant and the defendant had been drinking alcohol extensively throughout the day. The defendant was a licensed pilot and owned a light aircraft. After a long day of drinking, the defendant proposed taking the aircraft for a flight. The claimant agreed and even drove them to the airfield. The defendant started the engine, took off, but tragically the aircraft crashed shortly after take-off. The defendant died in the crash, while the claimant suffered serious injuries.
An autopsy later revealed that the defendant had consumed the equivalent of seventeen whiskies, indicating a high level of intoxication at the time of flying. The claimant subsequently brought a negligence claim against the defendant’s estate, alleging that the defendant’s intoxication and reckless piloting caused the injuries.
The defendant’s estate raised the defence of volenti non fit injuria, arguing that the claimant had voluntarily accepted the risk of injury by agreeing to fly with an intoxicated pilot.
Legal Issues
The central issue before the Court of Appeal in Morris v Murray was whether the defence of volenti non fit injuria applied. Specifically, the court had to decide:
- Whether the claimant voluntarily consented to the risk posed by the defendant’s intoxicated piloting.
- If the risk was so obvious that the claimant must be taken to have waived the right to compensation for injuries sustained.
- Whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the claimant and if so, whether the duty was negated by the claimant’s voluntary assumption of risk.
Decision and Reasoning in Morris v Murray
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in favour of the defendant’s estate, holding that the defence of volenti non fit injuria applied and therefore the claimant’s negligence claim was barred.
The court reasoned that the claimant had willingly embarked on the flight with full knowledge of the defendant’s intoxicated condition. The risk involved in taking a flight with a pilot who was heavily intoxicated was glaringly obvious. The claimant was sober enough to appreciate the extent and nature of the risk he was taking. Thus, by consenting to the flight, the claimant voluntarily accepted the risk of injury.
Lord Justice Glidewell, delivering the judgment, emphasised that the maxim volenti non fit injuria applies where a person knowingly and willingly exposes themselves to a risk. In such circumstances, the defendant is absolved of liability because the claimant has waived their right to sue.
The court found that the defence was appropriate given the facts of the case. The claimant’s participation in starting and refuelling the aircraft, coupled with the obvious intoxication of the defendant, demonstrated a conscious acceptance of the risk.
Consequently, Morris v Murray confirmed that where the risk is obvious and the claimant fully appreciates and consents to it, the defence of voluntary assumption of risk will succeed in barring negligence claims.
Key Legal Principles
Morris v Murray is often cited for the following key principles:
- Voluntary Assumption of Risk: The defence of volenti non fit injuria applies when the claimant voluntarily accepts an obvious risk. Knowledge of the risk and willingness to take it are essential elements.
- Obviousness of the Risk: If the risk is glaringly obvious and the claimant is sober and capable of appreciating it, the law will generally not protect the claimant from the consequences of voluntarily assuming that risk.
- Effect on Duty of Care: The claimant’s voluntary acceptance of risk effectively negates the defendant’s duty of care in negligence claims. Where this defence applies, the defendant is not liable even if they breached a duty.
- Limitations of Contributory Negligence: In Morris v Murray, the court distinguished between contributory negligence and volenti. Contributory negligence reduces damages but does not fully absolve the defendant, whereas volenti bars liability entirely.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Morris v Murray clarifies the application of the defence of volenti non fit injuria in negligence claims arising from inherently risky situations voluntarily accepted by the claimant. The Court of Appeal’s decision underscores that a claimant who knowingly consents to an obvious risk waives their right to compensation for injuries sustained.
