In Cook v Cook the Australian High Court held that the standard of reasonable care owed by a learner driver to an instructor, conscious of the driver's lack of experience, was lower than that owed to other passengers and road users. Recently, in Imbree v McNeilly, the High Court declined to follow this principle, concluding that the driver's status or relationship with the claimant should no longer influence or alter the standard of care owed. The decision therefore provides an opportunity to re-examine the rationale and policy behind current jurisprudence governing the standard of care owed by learner drivers.In doing so, this article considers the principles relevant to determining the standard and Imbree's implications for other areas of tort law and claimant v defendant relationships.It argues that Imbree was influenced by changing judicial perceptions concerning the vulnerability of driving instructors and the relevance of insurance to tortious liability.