Source: https://aprokoworld.com/can-injured-persons-maintain-an-action-under-the-fatal-accident-law-by-balogun-sofiyullahi-o/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 16:32:18+00:00

Document:
Can Injured Persons Maintain An Action Under The Fatal Accident Law ? By Balogun Sofiyullahi .O.
This question is borne out of the intense arguments that ensued between me and with a set of my intelligent colleagues at the A.B.U Law Clinic, Faculty of Law, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria on Friday, 24th day of August, 2018 between 7:30-9:00 PM. And with another set of colleagues on Saturday, 25th day of August, 2018 between 1:30 – 2:13 PM.
Therefore, this write up seeks to re-articulate the arguments that I canvassed thereat with more authorities and actual clarity.
Fatal Accident simply means an accident that causes someone to die or a great disaster occurred as a result of an accident. But, this ordinary meaning does not seem to give a straight forward answer to the question this write up seeks to address, mayhaps, as a result of the complexity often associated with law students, and nay, practicing lawyers.
Besides, the main source of confusion as to whether an injured person can found a claim/action under Fatal Accident claims is the true construction or import of Section 3 of Fatal Accident Law of Kaduna State 1956, CAP.49. It however appears that this provision is maintained in most of the Laws in other states relating to Fatal Accident . See Section 1 of Fatal Accident Law of Cross River State, CAP. F1 and Section 3(1) of Fatal Accident Law of Lagos State, CAP. F1, 1963.
However, since the provision of Section 3 of Kaduna State has the same import (although differently worded as in Cross Rivers), with other States Law_ I will maintain that of Kaduna State for purposes of my analysis.
I respectfully hold the view that the words “whenever the death of a person shall be caused…” as appeared in the above section is not properly framed as the word “shall be caused” ought to have simply read “is caused” for simple clarity. Equally, the words “…then and in every such case…” is unnecessarily confusing and amounts to a prolix as the section can stand without it as rightly couched in the Lagos State Law.
However, from a calm perusal of section 3 above_ does it give an injured Plaintiff a right of action under the Law ? I humbly submit in the negative. Therefore, I’ll break the provisions into pieces for clarity of purpose.
See also – Nigerian Deposit Insurance Corporation Vs Okem Enterprises Ltd (2004) 10 NWLR (Pt 880) 107, Ardo Vs Nyako (2014) 10 NWLR (Pt 1416) 591 and Saraki Vs Federal Republic of Nigeria (2016) LPELR-SC.852/2015.
Since basically fatal accident deals with bringing actions on a deceased/dead person’s rights by its relations, then the nothwithstanding in section 3 for instance, limits the application of the “rule of law” that says the death of a person terminates his rights & obligations except the one that survives him, that is, that rule is inapplicable to fatal accident claims. See ABAMO & ORS v. BAMIGBOSE & ORS (2016) LPELR-41947(CA).
In other words, the above means what it says, that is, in a situation where death is caused by virtue of the actions of another person either wrongfully or negligently or in default of the person’s actions or inactions. Then, the effect shall be seen in the later paragraphs.
From the foregoing preamble it is apparent that the law seeks to provide compensation for families of “persons killed in accidents” and not “families of persons killed or injured persons in accidents”. If the preamble is worded in the latter sense, then an injured victim can maintain an action under the Law.
More importantly, the usage of the word “would” in section 3 in its literal sense means “possibility, might or may”, and therefore, further strengthening the fact that the above paragraphs in the section constitute an additional information (that if not for death, the person may have instituted the action personally) but not in itself giving an injured person a right of action under the Law.
Flowing from the explanation earlier given above, the above equally means assuming the deceased person didn’t die, he would have sued the defendant personally under “negligence” and the defendant would have been liable to pay the injured victim damages who sued in person. Take note of “…if death had not ensued….” Because this means with the usage of “had” which happens to be a simple past & past participle of “have”_ it connotes a past event that had occurred. I.e death, as in this instant issue.
This writer discovered that emphasis is wrongly placed on the word “shall be liable to an action for damages”, particularly the word “shall” by some individuals, thereby submitting that this gives an injured person a right of action under the Law because it connotes mandatoriness. I hold the view that this is a misconception because the entire provision of Section 3 must be carefully construed together as we have submitted above.
From the foregoing analysis, I hold the view that the main contemplation of Section 3 of the Fatal Accident Law is with regards to maintainance of an action(by family) on behalf of a deceased person killed by accident, in the same way he would have maintained an action in person against the defendant in negligence_ had it been he was merely injured.
I have carefully traversed the entire Fatal Accident Law, I discovered that the entire Law contemplates a deceased person and not just an injured victim of an accident. Therefore, reading Section 3 in isolation of other provisions and particularly the preamble to the law, is not wholly accurate.
When interpreting an enactment, the duty of anyone is to seek the intention of the law makers from the words used and the circumstances of the enactment in question. Hence, the intention of the law makers is clear from the preamble and the entire provisions of the Fatal Accident Law when read as a whole. See the cases of DG, DICN & ANOR v. DINWABOR & ORS: (2016) LPELR-41316(CA), INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE V. ALL NIGERIA PEOPLES PARTY & ORS (2007) LPELR-CA/A/193/M/05, (2007) 18 NWLR (Pt.1066), IBRAHIM V. JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMITTEE(1998) LPELR-SC.130/1990,(1998) 14 NWLR (Pt. 584) 1 and AttorneyGeneral for Canada v. Hallet and Carey LD. (1952) A.C. 427 at 449.
“While it is trite that the marginal note to a Section does not form part of the enactment, it is helpful in determining its purpose or the mischief it is aimed at.” See also : Idehen v. Idehen (1991) 6 NWLR (pt.198) 382; O.S.I.E.C. v. A.C. (2010) 12 SC (Pt. IV) 108, F.R.N. v. IBORI & ORS. (2014) LPELR- 23214 (CA),UWAIFO v. A-G. BENDEL STATE (1982) NSCC 221 at 242.
Be that as it may, I finally submit with considerable force that an injured victim who did not die as a result of accident cannot bring a claim under Fatal Accident Law because, his remedy lies in an action for damages in the law of negligence, simpliciter. Nevertheless, nothing stops a defendant in an action brought under the Fatal Accident Law against him to rely on defences afforded by Tort of Negligence. I.e contributory negligence. See NIGERIAN DYNAMIC ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION LTD v. DASSO & ORS: (2017) LPELR-43206(CA).

References: v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.