Sarah Irfan (20020497)

Introduction to Legal Reasoning

18th March’19
IRAC - 1
Facts:
A married woman requested her neighbor to help teach her how to drive on her husband’s car.
The neighbor first inquired about their insurance in case there is an accident. The couple assured
him, with proof of an insurance certificate, that they had a fully comprehensive insurance that
covered him as a passenger in the event of a crash. Mr. Banner agreed. On their third drive, he let
Mrs. Hughes take the lead at a road injunction. However, she panicked and, despite Mr. Banner’s
attempts to take over for her at the steering wheel, they hit a curb. Consequently, a lamppost was
damaged and Mr. Banner broke his left knee-cap.

Issue:
What is the liability owed to an instructor by a learner-driver driving with (the consent of) the
instructor?
Sub issue:
On whom should the risk fall?

Rule:
Statute: Road Traffic Act 1960
Previous case law:
1. McDonald v. Riding:
Every person driving a car must attain an objective standard measured by the standard of
a skilled, experienced and careful driver. The learner-driver in question was therefore
charged with driving ‘without due care and attention’ after he knocked down a
pedestrian.
2. Regina v. Eustace and Strudple v. Royal Insurance Co.
The conviction of (the slightest) negligence on the part of the driver is admissible in civil
proceedings as prima facie evidence of negligence.
3. Kensington Corporation v. Muir, Richdle v. Farrell and Watson v. Walsh:
The learner-driver may be doing his best, but his incompetent best is not good enough. It
eliminates the personal equation and is Independent of the idiosyncrasies of the particular
person whose conduct is in question.
4. Henderson v. Henry E. Jenkins & Sons Ltd: The Merchant Prince.
 A person injured by a motor-car should be compensated out of the insurance fund if the
driver is liable in law.
5. Dann V. Hamilton and Slater v. Clay Cross Co:
The knowledge of the passenger may show that he is guilty of contributory negligence
and thus reduce his damages, but it does not diminish the standard of care which the law
requires of the driver.
6. Stanley V. Gymsum
The instructor may be debarred from claiming for a reason to himself because he has
voluntarily agreed to waive any claim for any injury that may befall him (volenti non fit
injuria)
7. Dann v. Hamilton, Slater v. Clay Cross co, Lehnest v. Steing (in Canada), Morrison v.
U.S.S. (In New Zealand) and Mooldridxe and Sumner.
The plaintiff must agree to waive any claim for any injury that may befall him due to the
failure of the defendant to fulfill the standard of care the law requires of him.
8. Baker v. Market HarborouabIndustriall Co-operative Society. Ltd.
In the absence of any evidence enabling the Court to draw a distinction between them,
they should be held to be both to blame and equally to blame.
9. Stapley v. Gypsum Mines. Ltd.
If both are equally to blame and one of them is injured, then one can sue the other for
negligence, but his damages would be reduced by one-half because of his own
contributory negligence.

Analysis:
We have established, through previous case laws and the Road Traffic Act, that the learner-
driver is guilty of negligence. Therefore, she is liable for the damage done to the lamp-post as
well as to the injury done to the instructor. However, since the accident happened in the company
of the instructor, the latter is guilty of contributory negligence too. The instructor did not agree to
waive any claim for injury whatsoever, and the maxim volenti non fit injuria does not apply to
him. He, therefore, has a cause of action. But the court failed to distinguish, based on an absence
of proper evidence, who is at fault. Therefore, the instructor’s claim is reduced because he may
have let her take control too soon or may not have acted quick enough to correct her.

Conclusion:
The learner-driver was liable to any injuries that befall the instructor in case of an accident.
However, since there was no evidence to show which one of the two was responsible, the
instructor’s damages were reduced by one-half because of his contributory negligence.