Nettleship v Weston [1971] 2 Q.B. 691

C, an experienced driver, agreed to give D driving lessons in her husband’s car. C satisfied himself that the car was insured against risk of injury to a passenger. C took D out on the road on two occasions and found her to be receptive to instructions and a careful learner. On the third lesson, when D was controlling the steering wheel and pedals and C was moving the gear lever and handbrake, D failed to straighten out after turning left, and began to panic. Despite the car moving at walking pace and C’s attempts to straighten out, the car struck a lamp standard. C sustained injuries, including a broken knee-cap. D was shortly afterwards convicted of driving without due care and attention.

Was the learner driver judged by the ordinary competent-driver standard, and had the friend teaching her accepted the risk so as to defeat his claim?

Finding for C, that since C had checked on the insurance position, he had expressly not consented to run the risk. The duty of care owed by a learner driver was the same as that owed by every driver. D was liable in damages. D was rightly convicted of driving without due care and attention. In criminal law, it is no defence for a driver to say, ‘I was learning under instruction, doing my best and could not help it.’ This may help to mitigate a sentence, but it does not absolve guilt. Every person driving a car must attain an objective standard measured by the standard of a skilled, experienced, and careful driver. The high standard thus imposed is largely the result of the policy of the Road Traffic Acts. Parliament requires every driver to be insured against third party risks. A person injured by a car should not be left to bear the loss on his own but should be compensated out of the insurance fund. Morally the learner driver is not at fault; but legally she is liable to be because she is insured, and the risk should fall on her.

A learner driver is judged by the objective standard of a reasonably competent driver, including when an injured passenger knows that she is learning. Knowledge of inexperience does not itself establish voluntary acceptance of negligent injury, although the passenger's own fault may affect damages.

Nettleship is a central illustration of an objective standard that does not fall with the defendant's experience. The driver's sincere efforts and the instructor's knowledge did not remove the duty or lower its standard. The insurance inquiry helped rebut an agreement to waive a claim, while contributory negligence remained a separate issue. Avoid extending the decision into a universal rule about every trainee profession, where the relevant task and professional authorities require their own analysis.