Imbree v McNeilly

The case of *Imbree v McNeilly* involved an appeal to the High Court of Australia concerning the standard of care owed by an inexperienced driver to a passenger. The appellant, Mr Imbree, was a passenger in a vehicle driven by the respondent, Mr McNeilly, who was a 16-year-old learner driver without a permit. Mr Imbree, aware of Mr McNeilly's inexperience, had permitted him to drive. An accident occurred, resulting in injuries to Mr Imbree. The central dispute revolved around whether Mr McNeilly owed Mr Imbree the standard of care expected of a reasonable driver, or a lesser standard based on his inexperience.

The High Court was required to determine the applicable standard of care owed by an unqualified and inexperienced driver to a passenger who is aware of that inexperience. Specifically, the Court had to consider whether the precedent established in *Cook v Cook* should be followed, which held that in such circumstances, the driver owed only the care reasonably to be expected of an unqualified and inexperienced driver. The Court also considered the relevance of compulsory third-party insurance to the definition of the standard of care in the context of motor vehicle accidents.

The High Court held that the standard of care owed by any driver of a motor vehicle, regardless of skill or experience, is that of a reasonable driver. This single standard applies to all road users, including passengers who are aware of the driver's inexperience. The Court reasoned that the existence of compulsory third-party insurance throughout Australia, designed to protect those injured on public roads, should be reflected in the common law duty of care owed by drivers. Consequently, the Court concluded that the reasoning in *Cook v Cook* was flawed, particularly its reliance on the superseded criterion of "proximity," and that it should no longer be followed.

The appeal was allowed with costs, and the orders of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales were set aside. The parties were given a period to file agreed minutes of consequential orders, with a further period for written submissions if agreement could not be reached. An application for special leave to cross-appeal was refused with costs.