CHAPTER FOUR

SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF BREACH OF CARE IN MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE

4.1 Problems Faced by Nigerian Patients

The patient's struggle with the culture's attitude toward litigation in Nigeria is one of the biggest
obstacles they confront. Due to the issue of court procedure delays and litigation's high expense,
it is generally believed that litigation should only be used as a last choice in Nigeria. The high
level of illiteracy just makes this situation worse. As a result, they are unable to recognize when
their rights have been violated, let alone go further and seek restitution. This is the situation that
has been implied. The patient has no choice but to put his faith in God due to the average
patient's complacent nature and high level of poverty. It is difficult to prove medical negligence
because the courts must also rely on the expert testimony of other medical professionals, who
may be reluctant to testify against a colleague given that the average Nigerian believes that
doctors can only treat, and that healing comes from God. According to Lord Denning in Hatcher
V Black, "It would be erroneous and indeed poor law to infer that the hospital and the doctors are
liable simply because a mishap or misadventure occurred. If it happened, it would be devastating
for the neighborhood . It would entail that a physician performing an examination on a patient or
a surgeon performing surgery at a table would constantly be scanning behind him to check if
somebody was preparing a dagger. 1

The goal of the law of medical negligence is not to make the doctor liable because an operation
was unsuccessful but to check the excesses of practitioners as in the case of Mahon V Osborne 2
where the patient had cotton wool left in his abdomen after surgery, rather than to hold the doctor
accountable because an operation was unsuccessful. The court held that in the absence of
evidence in rebuttal, the defendants were liable for negligence. However, the fear of litigation
may cause the medical professional to conduct defensive medicine by adopting techniques that
are not entirely beneficial to the patient but are low-risk in the hopes that they will shield him
from the prospect of patient accusations of negligence. Both the patient and the doctor will now
act cautiously and be unwilling to take any chances when performing their duties, which is not
good news for either party. The best course of action is to have an efficient insurance coverage
1
[1954] The Times (CA).
2
[1939] I ALL ER 535.
that covers both the patient and the doctor, as is possible in modern nations, in order to prevent
this unpleasant predicament. This removes the pressure of fear of litigation from the medical
practitioners, thereby giving them confidence to give the best medical practice.

Another issue is how to regulate medical practice because the medical council lacks efficient
monitoring teams that can travel to all corners of Nigeria to check on medical practitioners'
adherence to the standards expected of them and, if necessary, seal hospitals that don't. The
Medical and Dental Practitioners Act should be updated to incorporate clinic and hospital
monitoring, which could be done by grouping facilities into current geopolitical zones for
convenience and proper monitoring.

As a result of Nigeria's current epidemic power shortage, some hospitals in the country's rural
areas are forced to perform surgeries using kerosene lamps, placing the patient at the mercy of
the doctor who must perform this specialized task in a poorly lit theater rather than the properly
lit one that is the norm. One cannot overstate how important it is to inform the patient and all
Nigerians of their rights. They will be better able to understand their role as a patient and what to
anticipate from the doctor as a result. They will be better able to take assertive legal action when
there is a breach rather than taking a passive stance. With this in place, a patient from Nigeria
will be able to make an informed choice when the time comes.

4.2 Scope of Breach of Duty Of Care

But the ultimate question to be answered in relation to a negligence claim is not the factual one
of whether the allegedly negligent conduct played a part in bringing about the harm, but rather a
normative one about whether the defendant ought to be held liable to pay damages for that harm.
In other words, the question is: should the defendant be held liable for any of the harmful
consequences of the negligence and if so, for which? These questions can be said to concern the
appropriate ‘scope of liability’ for the consequences of negligence.3

4.2.1 Test for Reasonableness

3
Ese Malemi, Law of Tort (Princeton Publishing Co. 2008) 39.
A common and essential component of the law of negligence is foreseeability. The fundamental
inquiry into foreseeability is that there is a clear connection between the plaintiff's type of injury
and the defendant's unlawful behavior.4 There is always a chance that a patient who is not happy
will sue for medical malpractice. The objective “test of remoteness of damage” or “ test of
reasonable foreseeability” requires the court to put a hypothetical reasonable person in the
defendant’s place before holding the defendant accountable only for harm that a reasonable
person would have anticipated as the likely result of his improper behavior. 5 The failure to take
safeguards against a specific injury that resulted from the defendant's actions was not negligent
since the injury was not reasonably foreseeable, according to a standard "no breach" defense. It
should be noted that reasonable predictability functions as a switch here. A sphere or a range of
reasonably foreseeable outcomes are suggested to the court, and it is informed by one party that
the injury falls outside of that sphere and by the other that it falls inside it. Once it has been
determined that the damage is within the realm of possibility (or, to use another term, reasonably
foreseeable), the question of whether ordinary care is required to prevent this outcome still needs
to be answered. 6 In the case of Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co.
Ltd7, the criteria of reasonable foreseeability was established. The appellant carelessly spilled
fuel from their ship into Sydney Harbor, Australia. The water dragged the oil into the
respondent's dock where workers were welding. Sparks from the welding operation landed on a
piece of cotton waste floating in the oil and set it ablaze. The ship that the respondents were
refurbishing was seriously damaged by the fire and oil burning. According to the court's ruling,
the appellant neither knew nor should have known that the oil spill may catch fire when spread
over water based on the knowledge that was available at the time. Even though the respondent's
wharf was directly harmed as a result of their careless oil spill, they may have reasonably
predicted that the oil they released could catch fire. As a result, they were not responsible for the
damage because it was both too remote and not reasonably foreseeable. When the science is
clear, the foreseeability problem is frequently settled without debate. Lung cancer is a predictable

4
M Villiers, ‘Foreseeability Decoded’ (2015) 16 (Issue 1) Minnesota Journal of Law, Science
and Technology.< https://scholarship.law.umn.edu > accessed 5 May 2023.
5
Ese Malemi, Law of Tort (Princeton Publishing Co. 2008) 319.
6
Ibid.
7
[1961] AC 388.
result of cigarette smoke, according to almost uniform medical opinion. Greater challenges arise
from novel and complicated scientific occurrences, especially in the field of medicine. 8

4.2.2 Chances of Error or Injury

Since medicine is an imperfect science, it is doubtful that a moral physician would intend to
guarantee the achievement of a specific outcome. It's not generally acceptable to criticize
someone over a simple mistake of judgment. Treatment mistakes can occur for many different
reasons and in a wide range of ways. A licensed doctor may make a mistake even after following
all medical recommendations. The Supreme Court has ruled in several cases that a physician is
not liable for negligence or medical inadequacy if some error is made in the course of her/his
diagnosis or treatment if she/he acted in accordance with the standard of care recognized as
appropriate by a reasonable body of similarly situated medical professionals, regardless of the
outcome. There is always a chance that an accident could result in death during various medical
and surgical procedures. The patient must provide evidence of careless behavior that qualifies as
negligence. He must dispel the belief that a skilled and credentialed doctor is competent and that
his course of care is appropriate. Tort damages cannot be obtained for a simple error in judgment.
No responsibility has been assigned in cases where an incorrectly administered Nupercaine
anesthetic caused a patient to experience shock, where an operation caused someone's leg to
become shorter, where some organs were mistakenly removed, or when a vaccination went
wrong. After treating a fractured arm with X-rays, a doctor was sued in Clark v. Wansborough9
for failing to spot a dislocated shoulder. Since such a circumstance was "almost an unheard of
thing, it is unique" in that type of fracture, no negligence was established. The court made it clear
that whether or not to perform an x-ray depends on the patient's health, the type of injury, and
whether or not the equipment is available. When a patient jumped from a hospital window, when
a medicine caused deafness, and when a skin treatment produced greater agony than usual,
doctors have also been cleared of blame. The rules established by the law of negligence are
reasonable; they provide significant patient protection without endangering the typically
competent doctor.10

8
M Villiers, ‘Foreseeability Decoded’ (2015) 16 (1) Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and
Technology.< https://scholarship.law.umn.edu > accessed 5 May 2023.
9
[1940] 0 WN 67.
10
A M Linden, ‘The Negligent Doctor’ (1973) 11(1) Osgoode Hall Law Journal 38.
4.2.3 Negligence per se

The plaintiff will have a better chance of success in their personal injury lawsuit if the defendant
broke a statute intended to protect the public from harm, which may have contributed to the
damage. A violation of a law intended to safeguard the public is considered negligence per se,
which is defined as a careless act. 11 The duty and breach components of a negligence claim are
largely eliminated by negligence per se, meaning that if you are relying on this defense, you do
not need to show that the defendant's actions were negligent. 12 A high standard of proof of
negligence is necessary for liability because the allegations of negligence in the medical
profession are serious, for example, they may result in the practitioner's name being removed
from the medical practitioner's register, being temporarily barred from practicing medicine, and
the subsequent harm to his reputation.13 This is because the mere fact of an accident or error in
clinical judgment does not in and of itself constitute negligence. Therefore, excessive negligence
is the level of negligence. Medical malpractice itself is not a cause of action. The Supreme court,
however, found14 that a person who does not have understanding of a particular school of
medicine but practices in that system is a quack while debating the absence of a doctor's basic
qualifications to practice. No additional evidence is required when a person is negligent per se.

4.3 Relevant Rights Entitled to Patients

The political, economic, social, cultural, and developmental rights of citizens are outlined in
Chapter II of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (CFRN) 1999 Constitution.

4.3.1 Right to Health

One of the rights entitled to a Nigerian patient is right to health. The conventional definition of
the right to health, which covers both health care and healthy conditions, has seen significant
development in recent years in international law. These principles provide a framework for
analyzing health issues that moves the focus away from concerns about the caliber of care and
toward issues of social justice.15 Because of how quickly this right has evolved under
international law, its normative definition has important conceptual and practical ramifications
11
A Suszek, ‘Duty of Care in Personal Injury Law’< www.alllaw.com/article > is accessed 6
May 2023.
12
Ibid.
13
Ese Malemi, Law of Tort (Princeton Publishing Co. 2008) 39.
14
Poonam Verma v Ashwin Patel and Ors [1996] 4SCC 322.
for global health policy.16 Due to its derivation from both the Fundamental Rights Chapter 47 and
the National Health Act 2014, the right to sufficient healthcare is thus recognized as a human
right in Nigeria. It must be remembered that the FREP Rules 2009 have broadened the range of
legal instruments that may be used or relied upon in matters involving the enforcement of basic
rights.17 In place of filing a tort or contract suit, it is anticipated that patients whose rights have
been violated by medical professionals can seek recourse through fundamental rights
enforcement under the guidelines.

4.3.2 Right to Life

The right to life is guaranteed under Section 33 of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution, which also
stipulates that no one may have their life willfully taken, with the exception of carrying out a
court's sentence for a crime for which they have been proven guilty. The effect of this provision
is that everyone, including a patient, has a right to life. The section also places a duty on
everyone, including the health care provider, to treat the patient with reasonable/absolute care
and to make sure that death does not follow from such treatment. In this way, a patient should
never be included in a medical experiment that could lead to their demise. There is no question
that the right to life will take precedence right away if the medical treatment results in death.
When a plaintiff in a case of medical malpractice that results in death can establish, for example,
that there was medical carelessness, such plaintiff may also submit a request to section 33 of the
1999 Constitution to enforce the fundamental rights to life of the deceased. Medical proof won't
be essential in such a case. "Where a man is attacked with a lethal weapon and dies on the scene,
cause of death can properly be inferred that the wound inflicted caused the death," the Supreme
Court ruled in Ben v. State.18

To put it another way, "where death is instantaneous or nearly so, medical evidence ceases to be
of any practical or legal necessity where the cause of death is obvious." Dr. Okeize, a licensed
specialist obstetrician, gynecologist and lecturer at the University of Nigeria Teaching Hospital
Enugu, was found guilty of egregious behavior and gross professional negligence in the 2001

15
A E Yamin, ‘Right to Health under International Law and its Relevance in the United States’
(2005) 95 (7)Public Health 45.
16
Ibid.
17
Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009, Preamble 3(a) (b).
18
[2006] 16 NWLR 582.
case of Okezie v. Chairman Medical & Dental Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal. Due to the
death of his patient (Mrs. Obieke) following a cesarean section, he was placed on a six-month
practice suspension. As a result, the husband (on behalf of his wife) is able to start the
enforcement of his wife's fundamental right to life against the hospital under the provisions of
the FREP Rules 2009 section 33 of the 1999 constitution. This will be completed successfully
without facing the locus standi barrier. The law has also made it feasible for a deceased person's
dependents to exercise their right to life under the Constitution.

4.3.3 Right to Dignity of Human Person

According to Section 34 of the Nigerian Constitution, no person should be tortured or subjected

to inhuman or degrading treatment.19 Every person has a right to respect for his or her own
dignity. It is crucial to underline the significance of the right to human dignity and its key
position in the Constitution. The right to dignity is just as significant as the right to life. People
have a right to be treated with respect and concern because of their inherent value, which is
recognized by the right to dignity. Therefore, many other fundamental rights are based on this
right.20 The duty to respect a person's worth and personhood is imposed by the right to dignity on
the health care provider as well. A patient's person must be respected and must not be treated in a
cruel, inhuman, or degrading way. After an abdominal operation, a doctor forgetting to place
swabs on the patient's body is inhumane.21 Additionally, it would be cruel for a dentist to break a
patient's jaw during a dental extraction as seen in Fish v. Kapur22. In Cassidy v. Ministry of
Health23, the plaintiff sought treatment in a hospital for two stiff fingers but left with four stiff
fingers as a result of the procedure, losing the use of his left hand. These are examples of
inhumane and humiliating treatment that are still permissible under section 34(1)(a) of the 1999
Constitution, and for which the right to health may file a complaint and obtain prompt redress
under the FREP Rules of 2009. Additionally, a sufferer of medical misconduct or negligence it
was domesticated into our legal system via the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.

4.3.4 Right to Personal Liberty

19
1999 Nigerian Constitution, s 34(1)(a).
20
S v Makwanyane [1995] SA 391 (CC) 144.
21
Mahone v. Osborne [1939] 1 All ER 535.
22
[1948] 2 All ER 175.
23
[1951] 2 KB 343.
In any democracy, the right to personal liberty is crucial. Personal liberty, according to His
Lordship Justice Oputa, entails freedom from external coercion in the exercise of one's good or
faculties. It is the position of not being someone else's property or chattel. 24 Personal liberty is
the right not to be subject to imprisonment, arrest, or any other bodily coercion in any way that
does not permit legal justification, according to the father of the rule of law, A.V. Dicey. 25
Additionally, Section 35[1] of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as
amended) states that everyone has a right to their

freedom and that no one may be deprived of that freedom except in the situations listed below
and in compliance with a legal process. When patients are held in hospitals because they can't
afford to pay their costs, this right to liberty is most frequently violated. Since a hospital is not a
gazette

detention facility, it should not hold patients who cannot pay their medical expenses but can still
be recovered by legal methods. The clichéd rule in our legal system that states "Nemo judex
incausa sua" means that one cannot be a judge in one's own case. One of the most fundamental
human rights is the right to personal liberty because it pertains to the fundamentals of a person's
bodily freedom. A person's arrest or detention must be legal in order to be upheld under their
right to liberty.

4.3.5 Right to Privacy and Confidentiality

The confidentiality of patient-related information and the patient's physical privacy are both
protected under the patient's right to privacy. Establishing and sustaining a productive and
respectful clinical relationship requires confidentiality and privacy. The right to privacy has
social benefits because it promotes open communication about health-related issues between
patients and medical professionals. Physicians must maintain the confidentiality of any
information that patients provide them or that they learn from them throughout a professional
relationship. Privacy is crucial because it gives patients a safe environment in which to receive
medical care and give complete and accurate information. This fosters patient autonomy and
boosts trust in the medical system. Patients may also file a fundamental right action under the
fundamental right enforcement procedure if their basic right to privacy and confidentiality has
24
Glenn RA, The Right to Privacy (2003) 65.
25
Oba Gabriel Orogie v. A.G.Ondo State [1982] 3 NCLR 349.
been violated if the patient's formerly sensitive information is no longer protected by that right
rule.

4.3.6 Right to Freedom from Discrimination

Without exceptions of any type, including those based on race, color, sex, language, religion,
political opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or other status, everyone is entitled to
the rights and freedoms outlined in this Declaration. No Nigerian citizen may experience any
loss or disability as a result of their natal circumstances. 26 Access to healthcare entails freedom
from prejudice.It is not permissible to grant rights to obtain this access based on a person's race,
color, sex, language, religion, political opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or
physical or mental handicap. The prevalent bias against HIV-positive and COVID19 patients in
the hospital is a crucial component of this right. A patient who has been denied treatment by a
hospital due to a terminal illness may also be subject to the fundamental right enforcement
procedure rule for discrimination.

Patients who experience any of the aforementioned types of injuries may therefore apply to have
their rights upheld through the Human Right Enforcement processes rather than through civil
lawsuits based on negligence. The benefit of doing this is that it will eliminate the need to look
for medical specialists to serve as witnesses, which is frequently challenging to achieve.
Additionally, since the case would only be supported by affidavit evidence, it will guarantee that
the issue is heard and handled fast. There is no opportunity for technicalities, and since it
involves fundamental rights, the problem will be resolved quickly.

4.4 Defences for Medical Negligence

There are several possible defenses to a negligence claim, such as voluntary assumption of risk,
absence of proof, and contributory negligence. Aside from general defenses, there are also
specific ones for medical negligence, such as the expected level of behavior, need or emergency,
and technical error.

4.4.1 Contributory Negligence

26
1999 Constitution of the Republic of Nigeria, s 42(2).
Contributory negligence is a typical defense to a negligence claim. The medical professional
would have to demonstrate in this defense that the plaintiff's negligence combined with the
defendant's to really cause the damage. According to Kodilinye and Aluko on Tort, a person is
guilty of contributing negligence if they should have known that, if they didn't act like a
reasonable, sensible man, they might get wounded themselves. In addition, they must take other
people's carelessness into consideration when calculating their own negligence. A patient has
certain obligations of care toward a medical professional as well as to himself, with a specific
level of care of a reasonable patient, according to the contributory negligence defense in medical
practice. He will be liable for contributory carelessness and his damages will be reduced if he
violates this responsibility and causes harm to himself.27

4.4.2 Accepted Standard of Conduct

If there is no consensus among experts on the best or common practice, a doctor who follows a
different course of action won't be found negligent if he can demonstrate that he followed the
advice of a responsible group of men who are experts in that field. This was stated in Bolam v
Friern Hospital Management Committee 28 When the defendant in Clark v. Maclennan29 failed to
follow customary procedure, it was determined that he was negligent. The defendant in Maynard
v. West Midlands Regional Health Authority 30 was able to demonstrate that he had chosen to
adhere to one school of thought over another. According to the House of Lords, the court was not
obligated to make a decision about the various schools of thought. The defendant would not be
deemed negligent as long as he could demonstrate that he acted in conformity with a standard
that was acknowledged as proper by experts and competent persons within his profession. 31
Bolam's case decision seems to be more critical of the standard and has established a stricter
need for avoiding negligent responsibility. The new fashion demands that the doctor must
demonstrate that, in choosing a specific operation, he has considered all risks and advantages in

27
S M Olokooba and A M Ismail, ‘ The Professional’s Duty of Care: A Diagonistic Appraisal of
The Medical Practitioner’s Liability of Negligence in Tort’ Confluence journal of jurisprudence
and international law 113.
28
[1957] 1 WLR 582.
29
[1983] 1 ALL ER 416.
30
[1985] 1 All ER 635.
31
Olarinde and Chigbo, ‘An Examination of Contemporary Issues Relating to Medical Liability’,
(2015) 5 (1) The journal of Sustainable Development Law and Policy 54.
the context of his professional expertise and that his decision is reasonable given the patient's
best interests.32 A comprehensive defense is the accepted code of conduct among a responsible
group of medical professionals.

4.4.3 Necessity or Emergency

A medical professional would be justified in providing treatment or performing required

procedures without consent in the event of an emergency or need. What constitutes an
emergency, however, is a factual issue that the court will decide based on the specifics of each
case. Treatment by a medical professional without consent will not constitute medical negligence
in situations where failure to provide medical care will endanger the patient's life or limb, or
where the patient is incapable of giving consent and a relative who can give such consent is not
immediately or easily accessible.33

4.4.4 Volenti Non Fit Injura

This simply means voluntary assumption of risk and it is a defense to an action for negligence. A
plaintiff cannot receive damages if they knowingly and deliberately accept the risk of harm. 34
The defendant must show that the plaintiff not only accepted the risk of injury but also the risk of
legal liability in the event that injury did occur. 35 A defendant will have a complete defense if his
plea of volenti is accepted, and the plaintiff will not be allowed to seek any damages. However,
coercion, fraud, threats, intimidation, or duress should not be used to get consent.36

4.4.5 Absence of Proof

The level of appropriate care required during treatment varies depending on the circumstances. It
is the complainant's responsibility to adduce expert proof of carelessness. Negligence must be
demonstrated. One cannot just assume. However, proceedings for injury brought about by
carelessness are subject to the maxim "res ipsa loquitor," which means the fact speaks for
itself ,and in which no proof of such negligence is required beyond the injury itself. The crux of

32
Husks v Cole [1993] 4 Med. LR 393.
33
Ese Malemi, Law of Tort (Princeton Publishing Co. 2008) 39.
34
J Yule, ‘Defenses in Medical Negligence’, journal of the Australian Law Teacher Association,
56.
35
Smith v Charles Baker and Sons [1891] AC 325.
36
Ibid.
this rule of evidence, which affects the burden of proof, is that an incident that, under normal
circumstances, was more likely than not the result of negligence, was by itself proof of
negligence based on the lack of an explanation.37

4.4.6 Good Samaritan Law

Anyone who provides immediate aid to an injured or unwell individual is considered a good
Samaritan.A good Samaritan can typically assist a victim who is unconscious or unresponsive on
the basis of implicit permission. A potential rescuer should first ask permission if the subject is
awake and capable of responding. Medical emergencies that occur outside of a "medical setting"
or "clinical environment" are not uncommon.38 Therefore, in theory and in practice, we are a
better society if potential rescuers (i.e., good Samaritans) are only worried about helping a
person in need rather than thinking about the potential responsibility connected with saving a
fellow human being.The fundamental idea behind the good Samaritan law is to safeguard
individuals who offer care without expecting remuneration from accusations of malpractice.Laws
governing good Samaritans provide liability defense against carelessness.These rules do not
provide protection against "gross negligence" or intentional behavior Certain requirements must
be met in order for doctors (and other health care practitioners) to be covered by good Samaritan
laws. There must be no obligation to treat. This is why doctors who are on call often are not
covered by this protection.39

As a result, any doctor who already has a relationship with the patient cannot be regarded as a
good Samaritan. Another exception is that the doctor or other healthcare professional offering
assistance cannot be paid for their services. One can no longer qualify as a good Samaritan and is
no longer entitled to the safeguards if they are paid in any way for providing emergency care.

37
Ojo v Gharoro [2010] 10 NWLR 173.
38
J Adusumalli, K Benkhadra and M H Murad, ‘Good Samaritan Laws and Graduate Medical
Education’ (2018) 2 (4) A Tristate Survey Mayo Clinic proceedings, Innovations, quality &
Outcomes 336.
39
O W Brown, ‘Good Samaritan Statutes: a malpractice defense for "doing the right thing"’
(2010) 51(6) Journal of Vascular Surgery 1572.
In conclusion, This excerpt discusses the scope and limitations of breach of care in medical
negligence within the context of Nigeria, focusing on various aspects such as problems faced by
Nigerian patients, the scope of breach of duty of care, relevant rights entitled to patients, and
defenses for medical negligence.

Problems Faced by Nigerian Patients: Nigerian patients struggle with cultural attitudes toward
litigation, facing obstacles like court procedure delays and high litigation costs. Illiteracy
compounds these issues, leading to difficulty in recognizing rights violations. The reliance on
expert testimony and societal beliefs further complicates proving medical negligence. The lack of
efficient medical practice regulation exacerbates matters, with some hospitals resorting to
performing surgeries in substandard conditions due to power shortages.

Scope of Breach of Duty of Care: It delves into legal concepts such as foreseeability, negligence
per se, and chances of error or injury. It discusses how courts determine liability based on
reasonable foreseeability of harm and the accepted standard of conduct within the medical
profession. Additionally, it explores scenarios where a defendant may not be held liable due to
the absence of proof or the presence of emergencies.

Relevant Rights Entitled to Patients: Nigerian patients are entitled to various rights, including the
right to health, life, the dignity of the human person, personal liberty, privacy and confidentiality,
and freedom from discrimination. These rights are enshrined in the Nigerian Constitution and
international law, providing a framework for patient protection and recourse in case of rights
violations.

Defenses for Medical Negligence: It outlines defenses available to medical professionals facing
negligence claims, such as contributory negligence, accepted standard of conduct, necessity or
emergency, voluntary assumption of risk (volenti non fit injura), absence of proof, and the good
Samaritan law. Each defense is explained within the context of medical practice and legal
principles.

Overall, the chapter highlights the complex legal landscape surrounding medical negligence in
Nigeria, emphasizing the need for patient education, efficient regulation, and adherence to
professional standards to mitigate risks and ensure patient rights protection.