TORT LAW — Negligence — Duty of Care — Reasonable Foreseeability of Harm from Strangers’ Acts
Principle Statement
A reasonable person could not have foreseen the possibility that an unknown outsider hunting for rabbits would cause a fire outbreak on the defendant's property... The defendant in this case was shown to be a banker not a rabbit hunter. The use of small fires to catch rabbits does not fall within its daily routine. It seems to me that it could not therefore be held liable for a nuisance caused by strangers.
Ratio Decidendi (Source)
Per Oguntade, JSC, in UTBN v. Ozoemena (2007) NLC-123-129-2001(SC) at p. 20; Paras B–D.
"A reasonable person could not have foreseen the possibility that an unknown outsider hunting for rabbits would cause a fire outbreak on the defendant's property... The defendant in this case was shown to be a banker not a rabbit hunter. The use of small fires to catch rabbits does not fall within its daily routine. It seems to me that it could not therefore be held liable for a nuisance caused by strangers."
Explanation / Scope
This principle establishes that a defendant is not liable for harm caused by strangers where such harm was not reasonably foreseeable. The reasonable person test is applied to the defendant’s circumstances. A banker cannot be expected to foresee harm from rabbit hunters setting fires. The principle applies in negligence and nuisance claims. It ensures liability is based on reasonable foresight. The principle protects defendants from liability for unusual and unforeseeable events. The court must consider the
