UNIT 3

DUTY OF CARE

The concept of duty of care is fundamental in the law of negligence. It refers to the legal obligation imposed on an individual requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others. Duty of care is an obligation recognized by law, requiring individuals to conduct themselves according to certain standards, so as to avoid foreseeable harm to others. See the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] AC 562, which established the principle that one must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions that can injure one's neighbor. In Nigerian law, duty of care is established through the principles laid out in common law and codified in various statutes. See the case of Abugu v. Nwagu (1995) 8 NWLR (Pt. 411) 88 where the court held that a person owes a duty of care to another if it is foreseeable that failure to take care would likely cause damage to that other person and the case of Ojo v. Gharoro (2006) 10 NWLR (Pt. 987) 173 which confirmed the duty of care owed by medical professionals to their patients. See also the Nigerian torts law and the Consumer protection council act which imposes duties on manufacturers and service providers to ensure their products and services do not harm consumers.

STANDARD OF CARE

The standard of care is the degree of prudence and caution required of an individual who is under a duty of care. Standard of care is measured by what a reasonable person would do under similar circumstances. The benchmark is not perfection but what is reasonable and prudent in the given situation. Nigerian courts look at what a hypothetical reasonable person would have done in the same situation to determine whether the standard of care has been breached. See the case of Nigerian Airways v. Abe (1988) 4 NWLR (Pt. 90) 524 where the court held that the standard of care in tort law is that of a reasonable man and the case of Oruwari v. Osler (2002) 9 NWLR (Pt. 773) 672 which involved the medical standard of care, emphasizing the need for doctors to act with the level of skill and care expected of a competent practitioner.

PROOF OF NEGLIGENCE

To establish negligence, the plaintiff must prove the following elements: duty of care, breach of that duty, causation, and damage. The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff, who must demonstrate that the defendant's actions fell short of the standard expected and caused the harm. See the case of Okwejiminor v. Gbakeji (2008) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1079) 172 where the Supreme Court laid out the principles of proving negligence, emphasizing the need for the plaintiff to establish all elements and the case of Wema Bank v. Osilaru (2008) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1094) 150 which highlighted the importance of proving that the breach of duty directly caused the damage suffered. The elements of negligence includes the following;

1. Duty of care: this is where the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff.
2. Breach of duty: this is where the defendant breached that duty by failing to conform to the required standard of care.
3. Causation: this is where the plaintiff suffered injury or damage as a direct result of the breach.
4. Damage: this is when actual harm or damage occurred to the plaintiff.

SHOCK

Shock in legal terms refers to a psychiatric injury or mental harm suffered by an individual due to the negligence of another. Shock involves a sudden and unexpected event causing psychological trauma, which must be recognizable as a genuine psychiatric illness. Nigerian courts have recognized claims for psychiatric injury, provided there is a medical diagnosis confirming the condition. See the case of F.G.N. v. Akubo (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1200) 69 where the court recognized psychiatric injury as a legitimate form of damage and the case of Kwara State Polytechnic v. Alhaji Shittu (2013) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1362) 1 which involved claims for shock and stress resulting from the negligent actions of the defendant.

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE

Contributory negligence occurs when the plaintiff is found to have contributed to their own harm through their own negligence. Contributory negligence is a defense in tort law where the defendant argues that the plaintiff's own lack of care played a role in causing the harm they suffered. Nigerian courts consider the extent to which the plaintiff's own actions contributed to the damage and may reduce the compensation accordingly.

CASE LAW

See the case of Anya v. Imo Concorde Hotels Ltd (2002) 12 NWLR (Pt. 781) 161 where the court reduced the damages awarded to the plaintiff due to their contributory negligence and the case of Adetoun Oladeji (Nig) Ltd v. Nigerian Breweries PLC (2007) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1027) 415 which highlighted the principle that damages may be apportioned where contributory negligence is proven. See also the Law reform (torts) law which allows for the apportionment of damages where contributory negligence is established, enabling courts to assess the degree of responsibility of each party.

CONCLUSION

These principles form the foundation of negligence law in Nigeria, guiding the courts in adjudicating cases and ensuring that justice is served based on established legal standards.