Nettleship v Weston [1971] 2 QB 691 (CA)

Facts

Mr Nettleship agreed to teach Mrs Weston, a learner driver, how to drive. During one lesson, Mrs Weston lost control of the vehicle, hitting a lamp-post and causing injuries to Mr Nettleship.

Mrs Weston argued that, because she was inexperienced, her standard of care should be lower than that of a fully competent driver. Mr Nettleship claimed she had breached her duty of care as a driver.

---

Issue

Does a learner driver owe the same standard of care as a fully competent driver, or is inexperience a valid defence in negligence?

---

Decision

The Court of Appeal held that Mrs Weston was liable. The standard of care is objective, and inexperience does not reduce the duty owed. Every driver, regardless of skill level, is judged against the standard of a reasonably competent driver.

---

Legal Principle

Negligence is assessed by an objective standard: the defendant is compared to a reasonable person in the same position. Inexperience or lack of skill is not a defence.

---

Importance

• Confirms that learners and inexperienced defendants are not excused for mistakes.

• Frequently cited in road traffic accident cases and general negligence principles.