The approach to a claim in negligence comes into operation in the following circumstances: (a) On proof of the happening of an unexplained occurrence; (b) When the occurrence is one which would not have happened in the ordinary course of things without the negligence on the part of somebody other than the plaintiff and (c) The circumstances point to the negligence in question being that of the defendant rather than that of any other person.
– Shuaibu JCA. Diamond Bank v. Mocok (2019)
SHARE ON
Negligence is the omission or failure to do something which a reasonable man under similar circumstances can do, or the doing of something which a reasonable or prudent man would not do. More often than not, Negligence in civil matters occur in form of a breach of duty to take care.
— O. Oyewumi, J. Aseidu v Japaul (2019) – NICN/AK/01/2016
In the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) AC 562/(2002)12 WRN 10, the locus classicus on negligence, the erstwhile House of Lords evolved three ingredients of negligence, which a plaintiff must establish, thus: that the defendant owed him a duty of care, that there was a breach of the duty and that the breach caused him injury or damage. These three ingredients have since been accepted and assimilated in the corpus of Nigerian jurisprudence, see Agbomagbe Bank Ltd. v. CFAO (1967) NMLR 173, (1966) 1SCNLR 367; FBN Plc. v. Associated Motors Co. Ltd. (1998) 10NWLR (Pt. 570) 441; Abubakar v. Joseph (supra); Diamond Bank Ltd. v. P.I.C. Ltd. (supra); Ighreriniovo v. S.C.C. (Nig.) Ltd. (supra).
— Ogbuinya JCA. Benjamin Agi V. Access Bank Plc (formerly known and called Intercontinental Bank Plc (CA/MK/86/2012, 28 Nov 2013)
It is settled that negligence is a question of fact and not of law. So, each case must be decided in the light of facts pleaded and proved. No one case, is exactly like another. – NIMPAR, J.C.A. Diamond Bank v. Mocok (2019)
The Supreme Court in the case of HAMZA V. KURE (2010) LPELR-1351(SC) (P. 14, paras. E-G) Per Mohammad J.S.C., defined negligence thus: “As far back as 1856, Lord Alderson B., defined negligence to be the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. See: BLYTH V. BIRMINGHAM WATERWORKS COMPANY. [1856] 11 Exch. 781 at 784. It may consist in omitting to do something which ought to be done or in doing something which ought to be done either in a different manner or not at all.”
LUFTHANSA GERMAN AIRLINES v. BALLANYE, 2013 1 NWLR (PT. 1336) 527, The Supreme Court Per Kalgo J.S.C. had this to say: “The general principle is that the tort of negligence arises when a legal duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff is breached and to succeed in an action for negligence the plaintiff must proof by the preponderance of evidence or the balance of probabilities that: “(a) the defendant owed him a duty of care; (b) the duty of care was breached; (c) the defendant suffered damages arising from the breach.” NIGERIAN AIRWAYS LTD. v. ABE (1988) 4 NWLR (PT. 90) 524; ANYAH V. IMO CONCORDE HOTELS LTD. (2002) 18 NWLR (PT. 799) 377; AGBONMAGBE BANK LTD. V. C.F.A.O. (1966) 1 ALL NLR 140 AT 145; UNIVERSAL TRUST BANK OF NIGERIA V. FIDELIA OZOEMENA (2007) 3 NWLR (PT. 1022) 448; (2007) 1-2 SC (PT. 11) 211.
This position of the law is inevitable because what amounts to negligence is not law but a question of fact which must be decided according to the facts and circumstances of a particular case. See: KALLZA v. JAMAKANI TRANSPORT LTD. (1961) ALL NLR 747; NGILARI V. MOTHERCAT LIMITED (1999) LPELR SC; (1999) 13 NWLR (PT. 636) 626.
— U. Onyemenam, JCA. P.W. Ltd. v. Mansel Motors (2017) – CA/J/240/2016
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry