Court: Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Judgment Date: 30 June 1971
Where Reported: [1971] 2 Q.B. 691; [1971] 3 W.L.R. 370; [1971] 3 All E.R. 581
Legal Issue in Nettleship v Weston
Nettleship v Weston raised the legal issue of the standard of care owed by a learner driver to a passenger instructor.
The central question was whether a learner driver should be held to the same standard of care as an experienced driver.
Nettleship v Weston considered whether the defence of volenti non fit injuria (voluntary assumption of risk) applied, and whether the instructor could be considered contributorily negligent when the accident occurred with both the learner and instructor jointly in control of the car​​.
Material Facts in Nettleship v Weston
The plaintiff, an experienced driver, agreed to give driving lessons to a friend’s wife using her husband’s car, after confirming that the car was insured.
The learner driver, on her third lesson, failed to straighten out the car after turning left and panicked, despite moving at walking pace and the plaintiff’s efforts to straighten the car.
As a result, the car mounted the curb and struck a lamp post, causing the plaintiff to sustain injuries, including a broken kneecap.
The learner driver was subsequently convicted of driving without due care and attention. The plaintiff sued for damages due to the learner’s negligence, while the learner driver denied negligence and alleged contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff​​.
Judgment in Nettleship v Weston
The Court of Appeal held that the duty of care owed by a learner driver to a passenger instructor was the same as that owed by all drivers to passengers, the public, and property.
This standard was objective and impersonal and was not affected by the instructor’s knowledge of the learner’s lack of skill and experience.
Therefore, where the learner had driven without due care and attention, she was considered to be in breach of her duty to the plaintiff and was liable for damages.
The court rejected the argument that the learner’s inexperience should lower the standard of care expected and held that the standard of care in road traffic negligence is uniform and does not vary depending on the driver’s experience​​.
The Reason for the Decision in Nettleship v Weston
The Court’s decision was based on the principle that the standard of care in negligence, particularly in road traffic cases, should be objective and uniform, regardless of the individual driver’s level of experience or skill.
The court emphasised that allowing a varying standard of care based on a driver’s experience would lead to uncertainty and injustice in the law. This uniform standard ensures predictability and fairness in assessing negligence in driving cases.
The learner driver’s lack of experience was not considered a valid reason to lower the standard of care owed. The court noted that all drivers, including learners, have a responsibility to drive with due care and attention.
This responsibility extends to all road users and cannot be diminished simply because a driver is inexperienced or still learning.
The court also addressed the defence of volenti non fit injuria, concluding that it did not apply in this case.
The plaintiff’s prior knowledge of the learner driver’s lack of experience did not equate to a voluntary assumption of the risk of injury.
The court reasoned that agreeing to teach someone to drive does not inherently include consent to accept any level of negligent driving.
Moreover, the court considered the issue of contributory negligence, particularly whether the instructor’s actions in teaching the learner driver contributed to the accident.
The court found that the instructor’s knowledge of the learner’s inexperience did not automatically lead to a conclusion of contributory negligence.
Instead, each case must be assessed on its facts to determine if the instructor’s actions contributed to the accident.
In summary, the decision in Nettleship v Weston established that the standard of care in negligence cases involving learner drivers should be the same as for experienced drivers.
This standard is objective and does not vary based on the driver’s skills or experience. The decision affirmed the principle of uniformity in the standard of care in road traffic negligence cases​​.
Conclusion
Nettleship v Weston is a landmark case in establishing the principle that learner drivers are subject to the same standard of care in negligence as experienced drivers.
This case affirmed the objective and uniform standard of care required in road traffic cases, emphasising that a driver’s inexperience does not diminish their legal responsibility to drive with due care and attention.
The judgment highlights the importance of maintaining a consistent standard of care for all drivers, ensuring fairness and predictability in the assessment of negligence on the roads​​.
