SQE1 · FLK1 · Tort
Breach of duty — SQE1 Tort question
A worked single-best-answer question on breach of duty, with why each wrong option is wrong — the way SQE1 traps candidates.
Breach of duty
Rhys was taking his third driving lesson with a friend, Mared, who was supervising him in her car. Rhys was trying his best, but through inexperience he failed to straighten the steering wheel after turning a corner and mounted the pavement. The car struck Philip, a pedestrian, causing him injury. Rhys argues that he was doing as well as any learner could be expected to do at that stage.
Which of the following best describes the standard of care that Rhys owed to Philip?
- AThe standard of a reasonable learner driver with three lessons' experience.
- BThe standard of a reasonable person with Rhys's personal abilities and experience.
- CThe standard of a reasonably competent and experienced driver, regardless of his inexperience.
- DThe standard of a reasonable driving instructor, because he was being supervised.
- ENo standard of care at all, because the supervisor rather than the learner is responsible for the car.
Show answer and reasoning
C is the best answer. The standard of care is objective. In Nettleship v Weston the Court of Appeal held that a learner driver owes the same standard of care as a reasonably competent and experienced driver; inexperience is no excuse. By mounting the pavement Rhys fell below that standard.
Rule: A learner driver is judged by the objective standard of a reasonably competent and experienced driver.
- A The standard is not lowered for learners; Nettleship v Weston rejected a learner standard. (wrong rule)
- B The test is objective and does not take account of the defendant's personal shortcomings. (wrong rule)
- D The standard relates to the activity of driving, not to instructing. (right rule, wrong facts)
- E A learner driver owes a duty of care to other road users; any liability of a supervisor is additional, not substituted. (wrong rule)
Source: Nettleship v Weston [1971] 2 QB 691