Nettleship v Weston [1971]

Nettleship v Weston [1971] 2 QB 691 is a pivotal English Court of Appeal judgment, concerning breach of duty in negligence claims, particularly focusing on the standard of care applicable to learner drivers. The case grapples with the fundamental question of whether the standard of care for a learner driver should align with that expected of an experienced driver.

The plaintiff, Mr Nettleship, had agreed to teach the defendant, Mrs Weston, how to drive in her husband's car. During one of the driving lessons, Mrs Weston lost control of the vehicle, resulting in an accident that caused injuries to Mr Nettleship. In her defence, Mrs Weston argued that Mr Nettleship was well aware of her lack of skill and contended that allowances should be made for her, given her status as a learner driver.

The Court of Appeal, comprised of Lord Denning MR, Salmon LJ, and Megaw LJ, deliberated on the matter. The central question revolved around the appropriate standard of care that should be applied to a learner driver and whether it should differ from the standard expected of an experienced driver.

The Court rejected the notion of applying a lower standard of care to a learner driver based on the instructor's awareness of the student's inexperience. Lord Denning MR, delivering the judgment, argued that adopting such an approach would lead to complicated and shifting standards. Drawing parallels, the Court highlighted that, for instance, an inexperienced doctor should not owe a patient a lower standard of care simply because the patient is aware of the doctor's lack of experience.

The Court held that the standard of care for a learner driver should be consistent with the usual standard applied to experienced and skilled drivers. It emphasised the importance of maintaining an objective standard in negligence cases, regardless of the party's awareness of their own limitations. The decision took into account various fields of law and underscored the need for a uniform and objective approach when determining the standard of care in negligence claims.

Despite a dissenting opinion from Salmon LJ, the Court found Mr Nettleship partially responsible for the accident, as he was considered to be partially in control of the car. Consequently, the Court ruled that Mr. Nettleship could only recover half of his damages due to contributory negligence.

The significance of this case lies in its establishment of the principle that the standard of care for a learner driver should mirror that of an experienced and skilled driver. This decision has broader implications, suggesting that in various professional settings, the standard of care should not be lowered based on the client or patient's awareness of the professional's lack of experience. The case serves as a precedent in discussions surrounding the standard of care in negligence cases involving learners or individuals with limited experience.
Back to blog
UOLLB SQE Turbocharge

UOLLB SQE Turbocharge

Get ready for the SQE1 with high-performance SQE Study Guides developed by UOLLB and published by UOL Press to revolutionise your study method and exam strategy.

Turbocharge SQE Performance Here

UOL Case Bank

Upon joining, you become a valuable UOL student and gain instant access to over 2,100 essential case summaries. UOL Case Bank is constantly expanding. Speed up your revision with us now.

Subscribe Now

Where are our students from?

Council of Europe
Crown Prosecution Service
Baker Mckenzie 
Yale University
University of Chicago
Columbia University
New York University
University of Michigan 
INSEAD
University of London
University College London (UCL)
London School of Economics (LSE)
King’s College London (KCL)
Royal Holloway, University of London 
Birkbeck, University of London
SOAS, University of London
University of Manchester
University of Zurich
University of York
Brandeis University
University of Exeter
University of Sheffield
Boston University
University of Washington
University of Leeds
University of Law
University of Kent
University of Hull
Queen’s University Belfast
Toronto Metropolitan University
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
University of Buckingham
ESSEC Business School

  • Criminal Practice

    Diagrams and Charts

    Our carefully designed diagrams and charts will guide you through complex legal issues.

  • Criminal Law

    Clear and Succinct Definitions

    Key concepts are concisely defined to help you understand legal topics quickly.

  • Property Law

    Statutory Provisions

    Statutory provisions are provided side by side with legal concepts to help you swiftly locate the relevant legislation.

  • Public Law

    Case Summaries

    We have summarised important cases for you so that you don't need to read long and boring cases.

  • Evidence

    Rules and Exceptions

    Rules and exceptions are clearly listed so that you know when a rule applies and when it doesn't.

  • Company Law

    Terminology

    Legal terms and key concepts are explained at the beginning of each chapter to help you learn efficiently.

  • Case Law

    Case law is provided side by side with legal concepts so that you know how legal principles and precedents were established.

  • Law Exam Guide

    Law Essay Guide

    You will learn essential law exam skills and essay writing techniques that are not taught in class.

  • Law Exam Guide

    Problem Question Guide

    We will show you how to answer problem questions step by step to achieve first-class results.

  • Conflict of Laws

    Structured Explanations

    Complex legal concepts are broken down into concise and digestible bullet point explanations.

  • Legal System and Method

    Legal Research

    You will learn legal research techniques with our study guide and become a proficient legal researcher.

  • Jurisprudence and Legal Theory

    Exam-focused

    All essential concepts, principles, and case law are included so that you can answer exam questions quickly.