Nettleship v Weston [1971] 2 QB 691

Facts

  • Mr. Nettleship provided driving instruction to Mrs. Weston, his friend’s wife, who was a learner driver.
  • During a lesson, Mrs. Weston panicked while executing a slow turn and crashed the car into a lamp post, causing injuries to Mr. Nettleship.
  • Prior to the lessons, Mr. Nettleship confirmed with Mrs. Weston that she had car insurance.
  • Mrs. Weston was later convicted of driving without due care and attention.
  • The central legal question was the standard of care expected from a learner driver and whether Mr. Nettleship had voluntarily accepted the risk of injury.
  • The court also considered possible contributory negligence by Mr. Nettleship as he, as an instructor, had some control during the lesson.

Issues

  1. Whether a learner driver should be held to the same standard of care as a qualified driver in negligence claims.
  2. Whether Mr. Nettleship’s awareness of Mrs. Weston’s inexperience amounted to voluntary acceptance of the risk (volenti non fit injuria).
  3. Whether both the learner driver and the instructor could be found jointly liable, implicating contributory negligence.

Decision

  • The Court of Appeal held that a learner driver is held to the same objective standard of care as a reasonably competent and experienced driver.
  • It was determined that the defense of volenti non fit injuria did not apply, as mere knowledge of risk does not equate to consent to waive claims for negligence.
  • The court ruled both Mrs. Weston and Mr. Nettleship jointly liable, resulting in a 50% reduction of damages to Mr. Nettleship on the grounds of contributory negligence.

Legal Principles

  • The standard of care in negligence is objective; inexperience does not lower the duty owed to others (as clarified by Lord Denning MR and Megaw LJ).
  • The defense of volenti non fit injuria requires clear and express agreement to waive claims for negligence; simple knowledge of risk is insufficient.
  • Contributory negligence allows for reduction of damages where the claimant’s own actions contributed to the harm, supported by the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945.
  • The case reinforced that liability in road accidents is based on objective standards and apportionment of fault, not subjective considerations or total waivers due to risk awareness.

Conclusion

Nettleship v Weston established that learner drivers are held to the same standard of care as qualified drivers, limited the operation of the volenti defense in negligence, and affirmed the application of contributory negligence for shared responsibility in road traffic accidents.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal