THOMPSON & ANOR V. ADEFOPE

• Pages: 301-306

301



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1969] N.S.C.C.

This

appeal succeeds and the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the Ikeja

High Court in Suit No. IK/147/64 including the order as to costs is set aside. It is

ordered that the plaintiffs' case in that court be dismissed with costs and this shall

be the order of the Court. The appellants shall have their costs in the court below

5



fixed at 50 guineas and in this Court fixed at 67 guineas.

Appeal allowed.

10



THOMPSON & ANOR V. ADEFOPE

1.

OLATUNDE THOMPSON



APPELLANTS

15 2. M. EL-KHALIL TRANSPORT LTD.

V

S. 0.

ADEFOPE



RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC/318/1967

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

20



COKER,



J.S.C.

LEWIS,



J.S.C.

MADARIKAN,



J.S.C.

10th October, 1969.

25

Law of Torts - Negligence - Effect of Res Ipsa Loquitur - Damages of £1,700

for operation in hospital for broken right mandible and permanently depressed

molar bone not held to be excessively high.

ISSUES:

30



1. Whether adverse road conditions can serve as an excuse for negligent driving.

2.

In appealing against an award of damages, is it necessary to prove that the trial

Judge proceeded on a wrong principle of law?

FACTS:

The plaintiff instituted an action for damages for negligent driving. The plain-

35



tiff was injured when the defendants' oil tanker bashed into the plaintiff's car, and

the car was damaged beyond repair. The defendant contended that he was not

negligent but was blinded by the lights of an on coming vehicle. The trial court

found him negligent and awarded damages against him. Against the decision, the

defendants appealed.

40

HELD:

1. If the conditions on a road are adverse it is beholden on a driver to adjust his

driving accordingly and to drive more cautiously; indeed if necessary he must

stop altogether if it is too dangerous to proceed. A driver cannot risk it and

afterwards say it was because of the adverse conditions that the accident

45



happened but he can only escape liability if he establishes, and the onus is on

him in case of

res ipsa loquitur,

that in the prevailing conditions he was driving

with the proper care and attention attendant on those conditions. With the onus

on him a defendant must at the least if he cannot otherwise explain it show that

the accident was through no fault of his own.

50



2. In this case, the trial Judge was entitled to come to the conclusion that he did

and find that the accident was caused by the negligence of the 1st defendant,

and with the rejection of the I st defendant's story as to being blinded his only

explanation of the accident was that it was raining and this could not of itself