Negligence has been defined under Section 217, Anambra State Torts Law, 1986 as:
". ...
The three basic ingredients or elements necessary for the establishment of an action for negligence can be drawn from the above definition as follows:
1. ... Consequential damage to the plaintiff
DUTY OF CARE:
The relevant section under the Anambra State Torts Law (ASTL), 1986 are Sections 218-223.In order for an act or omission to be actionable for the tort of negligence, the plaintiff must show the court that the defendant owed him a legal duty of care as the court held in the case of Esiegbe v Agholor [1990] 7NWLR (pt 161) p. ... , in his book The Law of Torts thus:
" duty is the obligation recognised by law, to avoid conduct fraught
with reasonable risk of damage to others."
It was futher defined as :
" an obligation which the law would give recognition and effect to conform
to a particular standard of behaviour towards another". ... It is therefore, obvious that there is a measure of subjectivity involved in the judgement but it can also be seen that it is as objective as can possibly be under the circumstances. ...
It has been earlier stated that there must be infact, exist a duty of care flowing from the the defendant to the plaintiff in order for an act or omission to be actionable for negligence in court. The logical conclusion from this proposition is that there are set circumstances into which any act could be grouped in order to be considered to be an act of negligence. ... Lord Atkin stated:
" The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in Law,
you must not injure your neighbour. ... "
and according to Lord Macmillan, in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson (supra)
" the categories of negligence are never closed"
The court laid down a two-way test in the case of NEPA v Akpata [1991] 2 NWLR (pt. ... C 191, the court held that a barrister owes no duty of care to his clients as far as the tort of negligence is concerned. ... 243,248 would be pertinent in re-emphasizing the element of reasonable forseeability in order to establish a case of negligence;
“ A person is expected to anticipate and guard against
all reasonable consequences but……he is not by the
law of England expected to anticipate and guard against
that which no reasonable man would expect to occur. ... 93 that the mere establishment of a duty of care without a breach of such a duty will not amount to negligence.
To link to this page, copy the following code to your site:
All Papers Are For Research And Reference Purposes Only!
You may not turn these papers in as your own! You must cite our web site as your source!
