Imbree v McNeilly; McNeilly v Imbree (2008) 236 CLR 510
Tort law; Negligence; breach of the duty of care; determining the standard of care; contributory negligence.
Facts: Imbree, a licenced adult driver, allowed McNeilly, a 16-year-old unlicenced driver, to drive a four-wheel-drive station wagon on a gravel road in the Northern Territory. While driving, McNeilly saw some debris on the road. Instead of simply straddling it, he swerved to avoid it, without slowing down. He lost control of the car, which overturned. Imbree was severely injured in the accident and was left paralysed. He sued McNeilly in Negligence.
Issue 1: What standard of care was owed by McNeilly, as the driver of the car, to Imbree, his passenger? Was the duty of care to be determined by reference to an unqualified and inexperienced driver?
Decision: The court held that the standard of care was properly determined by reference to an ordinary licensed driver, even though the particular driver in this case was inexperienced and unlicensed.
Reason: It is well recognised that a motorist on a highway is subject to a duty of care to avoid causing injury to the person or property of another. But in response to the argument that the standard of care should be determined by reference to an inexperienced unlicenced driver, Gummow, Hayne and Kiefel JJ said (at 528):
"[T]he standard to be applied is objective. It does not vary with the particular aptitude or temperament of the individual… [I]t is, and must be, accepted that a learner driver owes all other road users a duty of care that requires the learner to meet the same standard of care as any other driver on the road."
The court noted that there are circumstances in which a particular class of persons, such as those who profess some particular skill, are subject to a higher standard of care than the ordinary standard; and that the standard of care required of children is less than the standard required of an adult.
Issue 2: Had Imbree's own negligence contributed to the harm he suffered?
Decision: The court found that Imbree had contributed to his injuries by his own negligence, to a significant extent. On this basis, responsibility for the harm was apportioned between both parties.
Reason: The court found that, to take reasonable care for his own safety, Imbree should have warned McNeilly not to make any sudden change of direction or speed on a dirt road. He should also have instructed McNeilly to straddle the debris on the road. His failure to do these things constituted contributory negligence, and he was held responsible for 30% of the consequent harm.