ACCA practice questions

If ratio is from an inferior court, a subsequent superior court may overrule it OK?

Yes tutor. Please help me one another question John, a learner driver, was taking lessons from friend, Steve. Before agreeing to be John’s instructor, Steve checked that John’s insurance covered him as a passenger. On one of the lessons John drove negligently and injured Steve. What is John’s duty of care in this case? The same standard as a reasonable qualfied competent driver That of any unqualified learner driver That which might reasonably be expected of a similarly inexperienced driver He has no duty of care as the defence of volenti non fit injuria applies Answer is A. I did C

I can see how you might easily be persuaded that option C would be the correct one. But, sorry, it is option A. For it to be C would suggest that non-qualified learner drivers could happily become involved in 'incidents' and yet face no great penalty ... because we couldn't expect them to be as good as qualified drivers. No, that won't wash. ALL road users should exercise due skill and care (rather than kill and scare) in order to avoid damaging other road users or their property. OK?

Tutor, I have studied that standard of care also depends on experience/expertise of the person. If he/she has more expertise so more standard of care is assumed from them. So why that is not the case here? Wouldn't it be unfair? However, I am totally satisfied from your point but still want to clear this last doubt.

Isabella, that's a good point. But a learner driver, by definition, is under the supervision of a qualified driver. That's why driving schools exist. I remember many years ago (but sometime after the repeal of the law that demanded a man walk in front of the car waving a red flag!) when I went out in the car under the supervision of my mother (a qualified driver) But this was only after I had had a number of lessons from a driving instructor and outings with my mother were simply getting more miles under my belt for the extra practice. I would hazard to suggest that the 'experience point' that you raise would be applicable to situations where, for example, a valuer was assessing the value of an apartment in New York. A more experienced valuer might realise that the apartment was only 10,000 square feet whereas an inexperienced valuer might accept the word of the owner who claims that the apartment is 30,000 square feet. Such a blatant over-assessment of size would surely trump the defence of 'inexperience' if such were raised by the valuer. Is that ok for you?