DUTY OF CARE IN NEGLIGENCE: WHO MAY OWE IT IN CERTAIN CASES?
Authors:
OYAGIRI Buduka
Publication Type: Journal article
Journal: Babcock Socio-legal Journal
ISSN Number:
0
Downloads
16
Views
Abstract
Abstract
The essential aim of the law of tort is to compensate persons harmed by the wrongful conduct of others, and the substantive law of tort consists of rules and principles which have been developed to determine when the law will, and will not, grant redress for damage suffered. Such damage, say Kodilinye and Aluko, takes several different forms such as physical injury to persons, injury to reputation, physical damage to property and damage to economic interest. This is exactly what Prat, C.J, meant when he reacted violently to a defence counsel’s argument that the fact in Chapman v Pickerisgilldid not present a form of action recognized by existing writ thus:“I wish never to hear this objection again, this action is for a tort. Tort is infinitely various…for there is nothing in nature but may be an instrument of mischief.” What can be said here is that, although the law of torts is primarily a common law creation, there have been statutory enactments to fill in the lacuna in the law. Some of such Nigeria legislations include; Defamation Law 1961; Lagos State Law Reform [Torts] Law of 1961; the Fatal Accidents Law of 1961 and Labour Act 1990, Workman’s Compensation Act 1990, the Factories Act 1990, etc. Therefore, it can safely be said that injuries which in modern times are called torts were originally remedied principally by the writ of trespass [available for injuries which are direct and immediate] and actionable per se; and subsequently by trespass on the case (for consequential injuries) where damage must be proved.