Question

Safiya was a learner driver. She was taking lessons from a licensed trainer Munira & Company Trainers. Munira the trainer accompanying Safiya checked and confirmed that Safiya’s insurance covered her for passengers before agreeing to start to her first training session. During one of the lessons Safiya lost control while trying to take a turn. Munira told her to straighten the wheel but Safiya panicked and failed to do as asked. She approached the pavement and Munira grabbed the handbrake and tried to straighten the wheel, but it was too late. She mounted the pavement and hit a lamp post. Munira sustained injuries which included a fracture in her right leg and Scrapes and Cuts some serious and some minor. She also broke her GUCCI eyeglasses and lost her Rolex make wristwatch. Munira was hospitalized for 10 days. When she returned from the hospital, she realized that 10 of her trainees had left and joined her competitor. Munira was planning to add two more cars to her fleet as she had submitted her bid for a government training contract. Munira had to delay her decision. Apart from Munira there were 65 other bidders.

Based on the sequence of events described in the above scenario, answer the following questions:

1. By using relevant law to support your answer explain whether Munira can sue Safiya? Assuming that, Munira has a valid claim against Safiya advise her on the determination of her damages. You may use relevant case law to support your answer (1mark + 4 marks = 5 Marks)

2. Explains the elements of negligence Munira will have to prove while making a claim against Safiya (You may use relevant case law to support your answer. 5

3.Explain the defenses available to Safiya if she decides to defend herself against Munira’s claim. You may use relevant case law to support your answer.

Answer 1

1. Yes, Munira can sue Safia as the later is a learner driver and the accident happened due to breach of care on the part of Safia. According to law from a case of (Nettleship v Weston 1971), the court has stated that a learner driver has the same duty as that of a professional driver and any accident caused by the learner driver will be a breach of duty of care. The  duty of care of a professional driver is a legal duty of being careful and avoid accidents and also to pay damages to the victims if any accident occurs due to their breach of duty of care. In this case, Safia has breached the duty of care and should pay Munira compensation, but she also is not eligible for full compensation as Munira was also at the wheel and her timely action could have averted the accident from happening. Under the same law, this case will be a case of contributory negligence also as both Safia and Maunira were responsible for the accident as both were at the wheel. So, Munira will be eligible to get only 50% of the compensation.

Assuming that, Munira has a valid claim against Safiya for determination of damages, Munira can claim general damage due to a fracture in her right leg and some scrapes and Cut. Nominal damages can be claimed as she also broke her GUCCI eyeglasses and lost her Rolex make wristwatch. Special damages can be claimed as she was hospitalized for 10 days and that led to the loss of her clients and income.

2. The elements of negligence Munira will have to prove while making a claim against Safiya are

Responsibility- As Safiya was driving the car, there was her responsibility to be careful while driving at the wheel and should not have gotten nervous while driving. She should have been alert and cautious at the turns.

2. Breach in performing responsibility- Safia has not performed her duty of taking care while driving and due to her nervousness, she caused the accident.

3. Cause of accident- The whole accident occurred due to the fact that Safia lost control over the wheels and became nervous and rode on pavement to hit the lamp post.

4. Damages- There were huge damages suffered by Munira due to this accident.She has to prove it as it is discussed above about the nature of the accident.

3. The defenses available to Safiya if she decides to defend herself against Munira’s claim is that of volenti non fit injuria, which means that Munira has knowingly sit into the car, that she was a learner driver and may cause an accident. This is deliberately done on the part of Munira. She knowingly sits beside her and put herself in a dangerous situation deliberately.So, Safia can defend herself by stating that Munira knew of the danger and she cannot be bring any claim against her for damages. This case also refers to the above law of 1971 car accident case of Weston.