LEGAL PRINCIPLE: MARITIME LAW – Bailment – Prima Facie Evidence of Negligence from Failure to Deliver
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The mere fact that the bailee failed to deliver the goods which they had undertaken to transport is prima facie evidence of negligence; the onus of disproving negligence rests on the bailee.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Onu, JSC (citing Coker, JSC, in Panalpina World Transport (Nig.) Limited v. Wariboko), in Broadline Enterprises Ltd. v. Monterey Maritime Corporation & Anor (1995) NLC-1661989(SC) at p. 61; Paras A–C.
"We consider that the mere fact that the defendant/appellant failed to deliver to the plaintiff the goods which they had undertaken to transport to Port Harcourt is prima facie evidence of negligence; and as the onus of disproving negligence rested on them, we cannot but agree with the learned trial Judge that that onus was never discharged. It is settled law that, in bailment the onus of proving that there is no negligence is on the bailee."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Failure to deliver creates a prima facie case of negligence. The bailee must rebut this presumption. The principle applies to carriage of goods. The bailee cannot rely on unexplained loss. The rule shifts the evidential burden. The bailee must adduce evidence of due care. The court may infer negligence from non-delivery. The principle protects the bailor’s interest. The bailee’s explanation must be reasonable and credible. The rule is well-established in bailment law.
