Facts

Mrs Hughes requested her friend and neighbour, Mr Banner, to teach her to drive her
husband’s car. The neighbour agrees after confirming that he has been covered as
passenger by the insurance in case of accident. Their first two lessons go smoothly and Mr
Banner lets her drive on the third lesson while assisting her at the same time. Mrs Hughes
panicked at the injunction and despite instructions from the instructor, mounts a curb.
Consequently a lamppost is stuck down and Mr Banner breaks his knee-cap.

Issue

To what extent would a learner-driver be liable for the injuries caused due to his driving?

Rules

Statutes:
Road Traffic Act, 1960 section 3(1)

Case Law:
McDonald v. Riding
Kensington Corporation v. Muir
Henderson v. Henry E. Jenkins & sons ltd
Croydon and General v. Seymour
Dan v. Hamilton
Stapley v Gypsum Mines
Mooldridxe v. Sumner

Analysis

In order to decide whether Mrs Hughes (H) was liable for the injury caused to Mr Banner,
the court needs to establish that H was negligent. As a driver and passenger there was duty
of care owed by H which was breached as evident by injures caused. The issues are firstly
whether H’s status as a learner-driver reduces the standard of care owed to Mr Banner and
secondly whether the fact that Mr Banner’s knowledge of H’s lack of skill amount to volenti
non fit injuria which means Mr Banner had voluntarily placed himself in his position.

The judgment states that civil law does not permits being a learner-driver as an excuse and
requires of them the same standard of care as anyone else, (Kensington Corporation v.
Muir) hence even if the driver is not morally liable she will still be legally liable. This is so the
injured party is not deprived of any remedy.

The defence that the injured party should be treated differently than a pedestrian because
of their special knowledge of the drive’s lack of skill is also dismissed because that can lead
to endless confusion when deciding the level of knowledge of each partner (Croydon and
General v. Seymour). Having special knowledge can, however, be used for establish
contributory negligence by Mr Banner (Stapley v Gypsum Mines).

The second issue of the volenti non fit injuria also does not apply because Mr Banner did not
expressly waiver any claim or any injury that may befall him due to lack or reasonable care
and nothing will suffice short of this to prove volenti non fit injuria as defence (Mooldridxe
v. Sumner). However, Mr Banner in the capacity of an instructor was negligent in allowing H
to take control too soon.

In case of the damage to lamppost she is clearly liable for damages because in that case also
the standard of care for H is the same as a skilled driver and there is no other issue with
regard to damage to property.

Conclusion:

The court held that a learner-driver owed to others the same standard of care as any other
competent driver. It was further held that also the instructor is also a passenger and
therefore can sue for damages but their special relationship is such that together they must
maintain the same measure of control over car as a skilled driver would. Hence Mr Banner
can sue h for negligence but his damages will be mitigated by half due to his own
contributory negligence.