Tort; breach of the duty of care; plaintiff's consent to risk of harm.
Facts: Needing to buy food, the plaintiff and defendant decided to drive to a shop in the plaintiff's car. The plaintiff knew that the defendant did not have either a driver's licence or a learner's permit, but insisted that the defendant should drive the car to get some practice. On the way to the shop the defendant decided to pull over and stop driving. The plaintiff gave her some late instructions to make a left turn and the defendant, confused and intent on avoiding another car and a fence, accelerated and struck a concrete lighting pole. The plaintiff was injured.
Issue: Had the defendant exercised the required degree of skill and care?
Decision: The required degree of care and skill had not been exercised.
Reason: The court held that when a plaintiff knows of a particular defendant's lack of skill or expertise, and nevertheless consents to participate in the situation in which a risk of harm is involved, the defendant's obligations must be determined not by reference to the normal objective standards but by taking account of the particular defendant's level of skills or lack of skill. Nevertheless, the court held that, even applying this lower standard, the defendant should not have accelerated and was therefore in breach of the duty of care owed.
NOTE: The approach adopted in this case has now been disapproved by the High Court in