Negligence is the tort that protects a person from careless action from another, that can injure or harm him. The law places a duty of care on various persons in various circumstances, where such a person breaches the duty of care placed upon him by law and that breach resulted in injury to the person to whom such duty is owed, the bearer of the duty is said to have been negligent and will be liable in damages to repair the injury caused.
– Tukur JCA. Odulate v. FBN (2019)
SHARE ON
To succeed in an action for negligence, the law is settled as to the standard of pleading and proof required. As a matter of law therefore; a plaintiff who intends to be victorious in negligence action must plead the particulars of negligence alleged and give cogent and credible evidence at the trial in line with the detailed pleadings. lt is not sufficient pleading for a plaintiff to make a blanket allegation of negligence against the defendant without giving detailed particulars of the items of negligence relied on as well as the duty of care the defendant owes him. See: DIAMOND BANK LTD. V. PARTNERSHIP INVESTMENT CO. LTD. & ANOR (2009) 18 NWLR (PT. 1172) 67; UNIVERSAL TRUST BANK OF NIGERIA V. FIDELIA OZOEMENA (2007) 3 NWLR (PT. 1022) 448; 1-2 SC (PT. 11) 211 KOYA V. UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA LTD (1997) LPELR 1711; (1997) 1 NWLR (PT. 481) 251; MTN NIGERIA COMMUNICATIONS LTD V. MR. GANIYU SADIKU (2013) LPELR 27705 CA.
— U. Onyemenam, JCA. P.W. Ltd. v. Mansel Motors (2017) – CA/J/240/2016
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.
The learned trial Judge on issue of Negligence rightly stated that Negligence is a question of fact and not law. Therefore each case must be decided in the light of its own facts. – Nwodo, JCA. OLAM v. Intercontinental Bank (2009)
The tort of negligence is a civil wrong consisting of breach of a legal duty to care which results in damage. Thus, three things must be proved before the liability to pay damages for tort of negligence and these are:- (a) That the defendant owned the plaintiff a duty to exercise due care. (b) That the defendant failed to exercise due care, and (c) That the defendant’s failure was the cause of the injury in the proper sense of that term.
– Shuaibu JCA. Diamond Bank v. Mocok (2019)
The onus of proving negligence is on the claimant who alleges it and unless and until that is proved, the onus of proof does not shift. In other words, where a claimant pleads and relies on negligence by conduct or action of a defendant, the claimant must prove by evidence the conduct or action and the circumstance of its occurrence which gave rise to the breach of the duty of care owed the claimant. It is only after this that the burden shifts to the defendant to adduce evidence to challenge the negligence on his part Universal Trust Bank of Nigeria Plc Vs Ozoemena supra.
— H.A.O. Abiru, JCA. P.W. Ltd. v. Mansel Motors (2017) – CA/J/240/2016
It is settled law that in an action on negligence, the party suing must give particulars of the alleged negligence and to recover on the negligence pleaded in those particulars, see Spasco Vehicle v. Alraine (supra); Koya v.UBA Ltd. (1997) 1 NWLR (Pt. 481) 251; Machine Umudje v. SPDC(Nig.) Ltd. (1975) 9-11 SC 155; Diamond Bank Ltd. v. P.I.C. Ltd.(2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 67; First Bank Nigeria Plc. v. Excel Plastic Industries Ltd. (supra). By the same token, a party who predicates his case on fraud must supply particulars of the fraud in his pleading, see Usen v.Bank Of W/A Ltd. (supra); Ntuks v. NPA (2007) 13 NWLR (Pt.1051) 392; Okoli v. Morecab Finance (Nig.) Ltd. (2007) 14 NWLR(Pt. 1053) 37; Ezenwa v. Oko (2008) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1075) 610; Eyav. Olopade (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1259) 505; Otukpo v. John (2012)7 NWLR (Pt. 1299) 357; Belgore v. Ahmed (2013) 8 NWLR (Pt.1355) 60; Order 15 rule 3(1) of the Benue State High Court (CivilProcedure) Rules, 2007. Fraud connotes crime and when alleged in civil proceedings, it behoves the party alleging it to prove it beyond reasonable doubt, not on the balance of probability, see Otukpo v.John (supra); section 138(1) of the Evidence Act, 2004 (section135(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011).
— Ogbuinya JCA. Benjamin Agi V. Access Bank Plc (formerly known and called Intercontinental Bank Plc (CA/MK/86/2012, 28 Nov 2013)
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry