Thornton v Sweeney

(2011) 59 MVR 155; [2011] NSWCA 244

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Torts
2. › Negligence
3. › Duty of care
4. › Voluntary supervisor of learner driver
5. › Content of duty of care owed by voluntary supervisor to learner driver
6. › Whether supervisor's failure to warn driver to reduce speed constituted breach of duty
7. › Whether reasonable voluntary supervisor would have appreciated need to instruct learner to slow below speed limit
8. › Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), s 5B
9. › Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Regulation 1999 (NSW), cl 12
1. Torts
2. › Negligence
3. › Breach of duty
4. › Motor vehicle accident
5. › Learner driver
6. › Vehicle travelling well under speed limit
7. › Whether speed of 70 kph in wet conditions was unsafe for learner driver
8. › Whether expert evidence improperly elevated supervisor's duty to that of professional instructor
1. Appeal
2. › Findings of fact
3. › Whether primary judge made finding as to speed of vehicle on entering bend
4. › Whether primary judge erred in finding on location of initial slip of vehicle
5. › Whether primary judge erred in not finding vehicle travelling at speed significantly greater than 70 kph

Quick Take

A voluntary supervisor of a learner driver is not required to give proactive speed-reduction instructions before every bend or road feature; the duty is limited to what a reasonable person in the position of a voluntary supervisor (not a professional instructor) would do. Where a learner driver is travelling well below the applicable speed limit and there are no warning signs or other indications of particular danger, the evidence is unlikely to support a finding that a reasonable voluntary supervisor should have instructed the learner to reduce speed. Expert evidence that improperly elevates the supervisor's role to that of a professional instructor, or that is influenced by hindsight, is of little assistance in determining breach.