판결 이유
The standard of care expected of a learner driver is the same as that of a reasonably competent experienced driver. The standard of care in negligence is objective — it does not take account of the particular defendant's inexperience or lack of skill.
사실관계
Mr Nettleship agreed to give Mrs Weston driving lessons. On the third lesson, Mrs Weston lost control of the car, mounted the pavement, and struck a lamp post. Mr Nettleship broke his kneecap. He sued Mrs Weston in negligence. She argued that as a learner driver, she should be judged by the standard of a learner.
판결 요약
The Court of Appeal held that Mrs Weston was liable. Lord Denning MR held that the standard of care is objective — the standard expected of a learner driver is the same as that of an ordinary competent driver. This is because road users are entitled to expect all drivers to meet a minimum standard. Mrs Weston's lack of experience was no defence. However, Mr Nettleship's damages were reduced by 50% for contributory negligence, as he knew the risks of being a passenger with a learner driver.
주요 인용문
"The learner driver may be doing his best, but his incompetent best is not good enough. He must drive in as good a manner as a driver of skill, experience and care."
— Lord Denning MR
후속 처리
Followed as the authority that the standard of care is objective and does not account for the defendant's personal characteristics or inexperience.