Tort (158)
HELD:
"Negligence is defined as carelessness, disregard, default inadvertence, indifference, inattention, laxity, omission, oversight, shortcoming, slackness, remissness, dereliction, heedlessness, forgetfulness and thoughtlessness.
HELD:
"In DES-DOKUBO V. THE NIGERIAN ARMY (2015) LPELR-25969(CA), negligence is defined as carelessness, disregard, default, inadvertence, indifference, in attention, laxity, omission, oversight, shortcoming, slackness, remissness, dereliction, heedlessness, forgetfulness and thoughtlessness.
HELD:
"It is trite law that an action in detinue may result in a judgment in one of three different forms:
HELD:
"The principle of res ipsa loquitur, that arose for consideration in this case, is a rule of evidence relied upon in a claim for damages for negligence. Where the rule is relied upon it postulates that in the circumstances of the case, the event that gave rise to the alleged negligence tells its own story.
HELD:
"My Lords, there is unanimity of scholastic and judicial views that the maxim, res ipsa loquitur, does not represent a principle of law, D. Howarth "General Defences," in A. Grubb (ed), Butterworths' Common Law series, The Law of Tort (London: LexisNexis, 2002), paragraph 13-46, page 625; Ratcliffe v. Plymouth and Torbay Health Authority [1993] Lloyd's Rep Med 162, I77.
HELD:
"As earlier demonstrated in this judgment, the trial Court has not only adjudged plaintiff/appellant's invocation of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur proper but that its claim has been made out through the preferred procedure.
HELD:
"Section 140 of the Evidence Act, 2011 (formerly Section 142) provides that when a fact is specially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
HELD:
"The only question on the onus of proof is whether the learned trial Judge was right in his finding that "from the surrounding circumstances this is a proper case - the plaintiff can invoke the maxim - res ipsa loquitur".
HELD:
"The Appellant at paragraph 5 of the statement of claim pleaded negligence and gave particulars of the alleged negligence. At paragraph 6 of the said statement of claim, the Appellant sought for the invocation of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor.