DUCLAUD V. GINOUX & ANOR.

• Pages: 1-6

DUCLAUD V. GINOUX & ANOR.



1

DUCLAUD V. GINOUX & ANOR.

5

C. DUCLAUD



APPELLANT

V

10 1. R. A. GINOUX



RESPONDENTS

2. MRS. M.H.R. GINOUX

SUIT NO. SC 19/1968

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

ADEMOLA,



C.J.N.

15



COKER,



J.S.C.

LEWIS,



J.S.C.

10th January,1969.

Torts - Negligence - Motor Vehicle - Accident - Wife driving husband's motor

20



vehicle for her purposes - Whether wife was acting as servant or agent of

husband - Liability for tortious act of wife.

ISSUES:

1.

In

what circumstances is the owner of a vehicle liable for the tortious acts of his

25



servant and agent ?

2.

Is an husband vicariously liable for the tortious acts of his wife.

3.

Which of the parties to an action has the duty of proving negligence.

FACTS:

The Plaintiff/Respondent brought an action against the Defendant/Appellant for

30



injuries sustained by his wife, the second plaintiff, in the car being driven by the

wife of the defendant. The plaintiff claimed that the accident was due to the ne-

gligence of the wife of the defendant and that her husband was vicariously liable

for her acts. The wife of the defendant denied being negligent and her husband

while admitting that his wife had his permission to drive denied any liability caused

35



by the accident. The lower court found that the wife of the defendant was negli-

gent and held her husband vicariously liable for her acts. The defendant appealed.

HELD:

1. The Wife was not acting as a servant or an agent of her husband as she was

driving for her own purposes.

40



2. Her husband was not vicariously liable for the acts of his wife as she was not

driving for his own purposes.

3. The owner of a car is only liable for the negligence of the driver when the driver

is driving with the owner's consent and is driving for the owner's business or

purposes.

45



4. Where a plaintiff pleads and relies on negligence by conduct or action, it is his

duty to prove by evidence the conduct of action and the circumstances of its

occurrence, giving rise to the breach of a duty of care. Then and only then

does the burden shift to the defendant to adduce evidence to counter the

inference of negligence. In this case the trial judge did not accept the case of

50



the plaiantiffs which was res

ipsa loquitur

but instead found, undoubtedly in

error, that the plaintiffs had otherwise established negligence when in fact they

had not done so. Consequently this ground of appeal must also succeed.

[As to

negligence

see 34 HALSBURY'S LAWS 4th Edition 1 para 1].