CORAM
PHILIP NNAEMEKA-AGU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
OLABODE RHODES-VIVOUR
KAYODE ESO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
T.O. KUTI
APPELLANTS
MRS. S. BALOGUN
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
EVIDENCE – VICARIOUS LIABILITY
SUMMARY OF FACTS
In the trial Court, the plaintiff claimed against the 1st and 2nd defendants, jointly and severally, the sum of £500 (N1,000) as special and general damages for the damage done to the plaintiffs shop and articles when the 2nd defendants taxi cab, negligently driven by the 1st defendant, hit the said shop.
HELD
The Supreme Court held that the appeal must succeed as the trial court failed to consider all the evidence placed before. A retrial was ordered.
ISSUES
Whether the appellant has by evidence rebutted the presumption against him of vicarious liability
RATIONES DECIDENDI
VICARIOUS LIABILITY
“The liability of the owner of a car for any damage for which the driver of the car was found liable has been clearly stated in the judgment of this court in T. O. Kuti (trading as Abusi Odu Transport) & Anor. v. Oludademu Jibowu & Ors. (supra). There the court, (ibidem at p. 167) after agreeing with the statement of the law by du Pareq, L. J., in Hewit v. Gonvin (1940) 1 KB 188 at p. 194 and by Denning, L. J., (as he then was), in Ormrod v. Crosville Motor Services Ltd. (1953) 2. All E R 753 at pp., 754 and 766, held that the ownership of a car cannot of itself impose any liability on the owner. The owner, without further information is, however prima facie liable because the court is entitled to draw the inference that the car was being driven by the owner, her servant or agent.” Per KAYODE ESO, JSC
CASES CITED
Ormrod v. Crosville Motor Services Ltd. (1953) 2. All E R 753 at pp., 754 and 766
Kuti v. Jibowu (1972) NMLR 18
Ogunmuyiwa v. E. A. Solanke (1956) 1 FSC 53
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Not Available