Tilbury Construction Co. Ltd. & Anor V. Sunday Ogunniyi (1988)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

M. A. BELGORE, J.S.C. 

On 12th January, 1988, I dismissed this appeal with N300.00 costs to the respondent. I now give reasons for the judgment. The respondent, Sunday Ogunniyi who was plaintiff at the trial Court, was employed as crane operator by the appellant company, Tilbury Construction Company Limited. On 30th January 1980, the respondent who duly reported for duty was asked by Mr. Smith, a mechanical engineer with the company, to inflate a grader tyre. He did not want to do this assignment as it was not his duty, but Mr. Smith insisted.

He set about inflating the tyre whose pressure gauge he did not know but was assured by Mr. Smith that he would be told whenever the tyre was inflated the correct pressure. He kept on pumping in air, and at a stage, he called on Mr. Smith and suggested that the air was probably enough, but he was told to keep on pumping.

The plaintiff was not provided with a pressure gauge or protective goggle. Suddenly the tyre exploded with great force and threw up shrapnels which injured the plaintiff grievously. He had extensively bruised face, multiple particles from the exploded tyre embedded in his skin, the left eye had sand particles inside and the cornea was lacerated with the lens ruptured and cataractous.

This left eye later developed orbital cellutus and paniphal mitis was therefore sutured and eviscerated, leading to total loss of the eye. The right eye was not free either; it had multiple corneal abrasions and subconjuctival haemorrhages which even after treatment remains partially blind. His sight is now severely impaired that he cannot work again as a crane operator. He claimed N230,280.00 as special and general damages; the trial Court awarded N28,000.00 as follows:

(a) Losss of one eye N20,000.00

(b) Pain, suffering, shock, distress 1,000.00

(c) Loss of earnings 3,000.00

(d) Loss of amenities of life 3,000.00

(e) Cost of artificial eye 30.00

(f) Future expenses 950.00

The Court of Appeal in dismissing the appeal against the decision of the trial Court, upheld the award of damages. Thus this appeal is as follows in its Grounds of Appeal:

1. “The learned justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law in upholding the finding of the trial court that the plaintiff/respondent discharged the legal onus of proof.

Particulars of Error

i. The plaintiff failed to prove the cause of the explosion