## 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.


Nettleship v Weston [1971] 2 QB 691