TORT LAW — Negligence — Duty of Care — Liability for Fire Caused by Unknown Third Parties
Principle Statement
If this happened, it cannot be within the reasonable contemplation of the appellant and the appellant cannot in my view, be held responsible for this and be found to have breached the duty of care to the defendant. Therefore, based on the evidence given at the trial as stated above, the findings of the trial court that the appellant was liable in negligence, is in my view perverse and the confirmation of the findings by the Court of Appeal wrong in law.
Ratio Decidendi (Source)
Per Kalgo, JSC, in UTBN v. Ozoemena (2007) NLC-123-129-2001(SC) at p. 13; Paras A–C.
"If this happened, it cannot be within the reasonable contemplation of the appellant and the appellant cannot in my view, be held responsible for this and be found to have breached the duty of care to the defendant. Therefore, based on the evidence given at the trial as stated above, the findings of the trial court that the appellant was liable in negligence, is in my view perverse and the confirmation of the findings by the Court of Appeal wrong in law."
Explanation / Scope
This principle establishes that a party cannot be held liable in negligence for fire caused by unknown third parties where the harm was not reasonably foreseeable. Liability requires foreseeability of harm. Where the act of an unknown third party causes damage, the defendant cannot be held responsible unless the risk was foreseeable. The principle applies in tort claims for negligence. It protects defendants from liability for unforeseeable consequences of strangers’ acts. The court must consider the reasonable contemplation of the defendant. The principle reflects the limits of duty of care.
