Nettleship vs Weston
Citation : [1971] 2 QB 691
Jurisdiction : United Kingdom
Plaintiff : Nettleship
Defendant : Weston
Facts :
The defendant, Mrs. Weston, wanted to learn how to drive. So, she asked her friend, the plaintiff, Mr. Nettleship for some driving lessons. Mr. Nettleship agreed to teach Mrs. Weston to drive, but first, he confirmed with her whether the car had insurance. He did this to ensure he would receive proper compensation in case of an accident. Mrs. Weston and her husband assured the plaintiff that in the case of any accident he would be fully covered as a passenger.
The first two lessons went smoothly and Mr. Nettleship found Mrs. Weston to be a really good learner driver. But during the third lesson, Mrs. Weston had to turn a left hand corner. She couldn’t follow through with the instructions of Mr. Nettleship and hit a kerb on the roadside. The car hit a lamppost and subsequently Mr. Nettleship’s left kneecap was broken. He then sued Mrs. Weston for damages.
Issues :
1. Whether learner drivers have to meet a lower standard of care than experienced drivers.
2. Does the defense of ‘volenti non fit injuria’ apply?
3. Should the defendant be held to the same standard as any other driver?
Decision :
The court reached three significant conclusions:
1. Standard of Care for Learner Drivers: The court held that the duty of care owed by a learner driver to the public, including passengers like instructors, is measured against the same standard as that owed by any other driver. Salmon L.J. dissented, arguing that the ‘special-relationship’ created between the learner and the instructor is “such that the beginner does not owe the instructor a duty to drive with the skill and competence to be expected of an experienced driver.” But the court emphasized that motorists owe a uniform standard of care to protect road users, regardless of their skill level or experience.
2. ‘Volenti Non Fit Injuria’ Not Applicable: The defense of ‘volenti non fit injuria’ was dismissed. Lord Denning stated that this defense had become “severely limited” due to changes in the law, particularly the introduction of contributory negligence as a partial defense. The court reasoned that Mr. Nettleship’s agreement to instruct Mrs. Weston and his verification of her insurance coverage did not constitute consent to remove her from the liability for negligence. The decision, alongside later statutory provisions like Section 148 of the Road Traffic Act 1972, cemented the principle that volenti is generally inapplicable in road traffic cases.
3. Contributory Negligence: Both Mrs. Weston and Mr. Nettleship were found to have contributed to the accident. While Mrs. Weston was primarily at fault for failing to control the car, the court noted that Mr. Nettleship, as the instructor, shared responsibility for failing to correct her error. This joint responsibility warranted a reduction in the damages awarded to Mr. Nettleship by 50% under the principle of contributory negligence.
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.
Relevant Law :
- The Road Traffic Act, 1972 (UK)
- Section : 148
Author :
1. Raiyan Talukder
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
