Legit: Obviously you're a layman who doesn't understand the law. Law is not about emotion, its strickly fact only. Read a precedent case of Ranson v. kintner. IF I ARGUE THE CASE, I WILL WIN HANDS DOWN, IT WILL NEVER GO TO TRIAL, AS THE BANK ATTORNEY WILL SETTLE, THEY WILL SEE THE WRITING ON THE WALL. Assume the bank fail their duty to their customer.

thanks bro. It is our duty to advice lay men on points of law. Just doing part of our ministerial duties. The duty we owe the larger society.

Taeewo: If u were rob at home wil u sue ur landlord?if u were rob on d street,wil u sue d owner(name) of d street?

No, bcus your lanlord is not in control of your flat after giving u the key, lanlord is still responsible for the safety of the building. The street belongs to everyone, you're not an invitee, however; even on the street, the city is responsible to keep you safe on the road. At least in the US. That is why you see police patrol.

Legit: You're right in theory, but WRONG in Law. The law applies what is called common law to civil case other than goods. The street is open to everyone, the bank is open only to anyone that have business there. The bank is a commercial establishment therefore give ppl license to come in, thus must protect anyone in their premises, whether the money is deposit or not. The fact as stated is Licensee is owe extra protection, as matter of law. That is why you have security in shops, bank, and office building, to show they have protection. The issue is not about the money collected, the issue is about the licensee
customer.

You obviously don't understand what you are saying. Banks are assumed to already provide a standard security on their premises. It will be deemed by the courts to be adequate thus invalidating your argument against the duty of care

Balmoral supermarket ltd vs bank of new Zealand clearly established the precedent that in cases as these, the banks are not liable. As long as the cashier has not stamped and handed over the deposit slip the customer is on his own. Case closed

This is a question I got a chance to the answer from a cashier in the bulk room some few years back.

In the event robbers collect money from you, the bank would only be liable to that which is in possesion by the bank e.g if a cashier has counted and signed you can.

In other news any were else the money Is Θñ you be it toilet banking hall managers office that is your loss...

The bank is liable... Kindly read up law of tort. You will understand better!

Im sorry but this is a rather crazy question. But I donut the bank is liable.. Reason being:

1. For the bank to be held responsible for your money lost on their premises during a robbery or a fire or any other such situation, the bank must have taken physical possession of the money. Meaning you have handed the cash over to the bank.

2. The banks security is not primarily for the customers per se, but for the bank. Meaning the primary responsibility of the security guards in the banking hall is to first protect the bank and then the customers.

Remember that the monies stolen from the bank would have to be replaced by their insurance company. Problem is because your money was still in your possession as at when the crime occurred, the liability is still on you. It does not even have to be a robbery sef, it could also be pick pockets that stole the money.

It's like asking if you can sue a Man in whose house you got robbed. NO! You can't.

It's like you drove a Brand new Rolls Royce from the dealership to your Insurance company and whilst you were inside still filling out the form, the car got stolen from the premises of the Insurance company when a sign saying 'Vehicle parked at owners risk' is clearly marked on the wall, you can't claim any form of insurance or compensation.

It's like a question someone asked one time that what if you are inside a bank during a robbery and the robbers come out with a stack of cash and sprays it inside the hall before their exit, and then people start picking it, if the bank can hold you. The truth is that it would be a difficult situation.. It would boil down to a matter of jurisprudence. The matter would be resolved by the courts in this case because truthfully, it's a crime. But the technicality of it would be what the courts would have to determine.


But for the sake of argument in terms of the banks duty of care to customers within its halls, a good lawyer maybe able to argue it out..

So in conclusion, it boils down to jurisprudence.

dancewith:

You obviously don't understand what you are saying. Banks are assumed to already provide a standard security on their premises. It will be deemed by the courts to be adequate thus invalidating your argument against the duty of care

Balmoral supermarket ltd vs bank of new Zealand clearly established the precedent that in cases as these, the banks are not liable. As long as the cashier has not stamped and handed over the deposit slip the customer is on his own. Case closed

The burden of proff is rest on the plaintiff, the assumtion has to be proven, you cannot assumed the bank has adequate security, what if the bank lacks, or cut corner, or didn't hire enough security, the bank must prove NOT ASSUMED it provide enough security. The case of Ranson v. Kintner as stated. If your stated case applied common law, the plaintiff will win.

md4real: The bank is liable... Kindly read up law of tort. You will understand better!

#Good point.

A lawyer sitting with me right now just said the same thing.

Okija_juju: Im sorry but this is a rather crazy question. But I donut the bank is liable.. Reason being:

1. For the bank to be held responsible for your money lost on their premises during a robbery or a fire or any other such situation, the bank must have taken physical possession of the money. Meaning you have handed the cash over to the bank.

2. The banks security is not primarily for the customers per se, but for the bank. Meaning the primary responsibility of the security guards in the banking hall is to first protect the bank and then the customers.

Remember that the monies stolen from the bank would have to be replaced by their insurance company. Problem is because your money was still in your possession as at when the crime occurred, the liability is still on you. It does not even have to be a robbery sef, it could also be pick pockets that stole the money.

It's like asking if you can sue a Man in whose house you got robbed. NO! You can't.

It's like you drove a Brand new Rolls Royce from the dealership to your Insurance company and whilst you were inside still filling out the form, the car got stolen from the premises of the Insurance company when a sign saying 'Vehicle parked at owners risk' is clearly marked on the wall, you can't claim any form of insurance or compensation.

It's like a question someone asked one time that what if you are inside a bank during a robbery and the robbers come out with a stack of cash and sprays it inside the hall before their exit, and then people start picking it, if the bank can hold you. The truth is that it would be a difficult situation.. It would boil down to a matter of jurisprudence. The matter would be resolved by the courts in this case because truthfully, it's a crime. But the technicality of it would be what the courts would have to determine.


But for the sake of argument in terms of the banks duty of care to customers within its halls, a good lawyer maybe able to argue it out..

So in conclusion, it boils down to jurisprudence.

Let answer your question in order stated 1) You do not need to hand over the money to proof tort, and civil wrong on your premises due to your negligence for lack of adequate security makes you liable is called "but for" in law. 2) The bank primary security is equally to his licensee and his business, remember the reason the bank open is to his licensee or customer, the word "licensee" is critical as it differ from invitee, licensee require extra care.

My argument is not about posession, it is about the bank's responsibility once the customer step in their lobby. Possession amount has to be profing later. We are talking whether adequate security is provided, if not bank is liable. Tort Law calls for Duty of Care in resident or business.

Legit: Let answer your question in order stated 1) You do not need to hand over the money to proof tort, and civil wrong on your premises due to your negligence for lack of adequate security makes you liable is called "but for" in law. 2) The bank primary security is equally to his licensee and his business, remember the reason the bank open is to his licensee or customer, the word "licensee" is critical as it differ from invitee, licensee require extra care.

My argument is not about posession, it is about the bank's responsibility once the customer step in their lobby. Possession amount has to be profing later. We are talking whether adequate security is provided, if not bank is liable. Tort Law calls for Duty of Care in resident or business.

But you do agree that when once a customer steps into the banking halls, the bank owes that customer a duty of care..


If yes, the next question becomes what's the extent of that care.

If no.. Then we are back on the matter..

For the argument of tort, the onus of proof of negligence on the part of the bank leading up to the loss would fall squarely on the customer.


P.S:: I am not a lawyer by profession, but an engineer.. But my current job description has to do with contract law.. Plus I grew up around so many lawyers..

Dis was a case discussed in class @ my lower level days in sch,following judicial precedent as decided in a case i can't remember now, d bank can only be held liable for such if the money has been passed over d counter and the deposit slip stamped by the teller otherwise the bank customer is on his own. Oda liabilities that a bank customa may be liable to is not counting U̶̲̥̅̊я money @ d bank b4 leaving and coming back later to say U̶̲̥̅̊я money isn't complete. Anoda is handling U̶̲̥̅̊я money to an employee in the bank who is nt permitted to take in deposit, U̶̲̥̅̊ can only pay in to tellers(or cashiers) on d dezk, if such unauthorised employee defraud U̶̲̥̅̊ of U̶̲̥̅̊я money, mu broda U̶̲̥̅̊ ar on U̶̲̥̅̊я own.

Okija_juju:

#Good point.

A lawyer sitting with me right now just said the same thing.

Great, another Lawyer agrees with me. Im vindicated. Many lose their right for lack of knowledge. I would like to handle this case on trial.

Okija_juju:


But you do agree that when once a customer steps into the banking halls, the bank owes that customer a duty of care..


If yes, the next question becomes what's the extent of that care.

If no.. Then we are back on the matter..

For the argument of tort, the onus of proof of negligence on the part of the bank leading up to the loss would fall squarely on the customer.


P.S:: I am not a lawyer by profession, but an engineer.. But my current job description has to do with contract law.. Plus I grew up around so many lawyers..

Yes, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. However, the adequate duty of care will be decided by the trier of fact (Jury). My argument is If the bank cannot prove adequate protection for its licensee, it is liable. Another lawyer just concur with me.

I didn't even have to read the rest of the post. The question was sufficient enough (assuming the right question was asked):

It's quite simple: If the money is "in your possession," then NO!

1. You are in the bank's premises = your possession
2. You are getting ready to hand the money to the teller = your possession
3. You have handed the money to the teller but it is yet to be recorded in the system = your possession

Until the money is recorded in the bank's system, it's still in your possession!

If the money is in the bank's possession, then YES!

Happy New Year!

churific: I didn't even have to read the rest of the post. The question was sufficient enough (assuming the right question was asked):

It's quite simple: If the money is "in your possession," then NO!

1. You are in the bank's premises = your possession
2. You are getting ready to hand the money to the teller = your possession
3. You have handed the money to the teller but it is yet to be recorded in the system = your possession

Until the money is recorded in the bank's system, it's still in your possession!

If the money is in the bank's possession, then YES!

Happy New Year!

Layman's Opinion. How about the Governing Law of Commerce? Read the Post.

bank must reimburse. Reason is that the bank guarantees total security within the banking hall (thats why they carry out all forms of security checks b4 someone enters). If they wont reimburse, then they would have been encouraging customers to be making their security arrangements within the banking hall.........then we will all be coming into the bank with our arms and ammunitions to protect ourselves

For wat nah?

As a follow up to what a majority of legal opinions here have posited, since you are still in posession of your cash and have not made your intentions known to deposit such cash, you ordinarily do not have a case.

However, I think that you can make a strong case where your counsel can prove that the bank was negligent or lax in areas of securing its premises and customers. I do not have any legal authority to back this up, but it would be a good thing for our courts to address such nouveau situations to fit into today's Nigerian society. Law was made for man, and not man for the law.

Do banks really have to provide security to customers? Then what if you enter the bank to use the 24 hr ATM? There is no security for the customer.....then what happens if you are robbed while trying to make a transaction? If the bank was really responsible then I need not work...withdraw N5 million ....call my friend to come rob me as soon as I leave the counter...then later get the bank to replace my stolen cash. Don't you think this scenario would be very common with all these jobless graduates roaming the streets?

Dear Poster,
First let me start by congratulating you for making fb on this special new year day. Am happy this topic is coming timely and since its my field of study I would help in clearing the air.
Simply the bank can't be sue for no reason. The relationship between the bank and any depositor is called bank-coustomer relationship and it only subsits when you open and accout with the bank n deposit money which has not been established here. The money though within the presmises of the bank is not yet in coustody of the bank.Abnitio,(in law it can be seen as negligence on the side of the owner or an act of God. In conclusion the customer can't have any case or damage against the bank.

miknero: Dear Poster,
First let me start by congratulating you for making fb on this special new year day. Am happy this topic is coming timely and since its my field of study I would help in clearing the air.
Simply the bank can't be sue for no reason. The relationship between the bank and any depositor is called bank-coustomer relationship and it only subsits when you open and accout with the bank n deposit money which has not been established here. The money though within the presmises of the bank is not yet in coustody of the bank.Abnitio,(in law it can be seen as negligence on the side of the owner or an act of God. In conclusion the customer can't have any case or damage against the bank.

This is not about just the customer relationship, any one in the bank premises in a foreseable plaintiff, just like when you drive anyone on the road is a foreseable plaintiff. The bank is liable to any one with its premises, provided it can be proving that the bank is failed in its due care to its licensee. Tort law hold the bank to give due care. Rainston v. Kinsner

@LEGIT..As a follow up from my earlier post where I stated explicit with relevant authorities that the Bank will not be liable..I will like to address the issue of NEGLIGENCE of which you have raised.

Negligence in itself is not a one way street as it is one of the most complex principles in the law of Tort..just as u may know that d tort of negligence is not actionable per se I.e actionable without proof of special damage like the tort of tresspas..for you to establish the tort of negligence u must establish 3things(Duty of care, breach, damages) and should you fail in one then your case is invalid.
Equally note that not every act of carelessness or negligence is actionable as LORD WRIGHT explained in the case of LOCHGELLY IRON V McMullan, he posited that "in strict legal analysis, negligence means more than heedless or careless conduct whether in omission or commission. it properly connotes the complex concept of duty, breach and damages thereby suffered by the person to whom the duty is owing"

thus in dis case u may be able to establish that there is a Duty of Care owned by the bank to the customer, but in actual fact the Duty is that of safe keeping of the customer's money of which falls under their possession,until then there is no duty of care.

The next element to prove if you successfully prove that there was a duty of care owed is that there was a BREACH of that DUTY, and this is the part that occupies the most time of the court as it looks at several elements including the REASONABLE MAN's TEST..other elements include the likelihood of harm and measures to avoid the harm..I will not bore u with lengthy notes because it is a long issue.

But in Brief conclusion the Bank's lawyer just need to state to the court that the likelihood of harm (the coming of robbers) into the bank is not frequent and even if it is frequent the provision of security guards will suffice and will exclude the bank from any attack therefrom as it could be seen that measures were taken to forestall the act you can see the Case of BOLTON V STONE..remember the Law does not require the doing of the impossible, so once necessary precaution is taken you are freed from liability that is why we have a Defence called AN ACT OF GOD under the tort of NUISANCE..
Finally since the tort of Negligence is not actionable per se you can't even go ahead to prove damages when you have failed in the other two elements. cases where you can easily hold the bank on negligence include, unauthorized publication of your account, injury with the bank equipments negligently displayed, drinking of contaminated water frm d banks water dispenser,injury from slippery floor etc..

The Bank will be liable 'if and only if' your money was duly confirmed and your teller signed and stamped with you in custody of your copy. Aside that it's OYO.
Even at the point of confirmation i.e counting of your cash by the Bank's staff (Teller), if he/she did not sign and stamp your ticket that cash was confirmed and collected, sorry there is NO transaction and the bank will not be liable. 'Law of contract.'

Pointless Arguments all over this thread.
You don't need to be a lawyer to know the answer to this ridiculously easy question.

Banks are not liable. Even if they were,for the sake of argument:

How will the customer prove how much he had on him at the time of the robbery? For this reason alone,it's a non-starter in any court of law.

BY Silver: @LEGIT..As a follow up from my earlier post where I stated explicit with relevant authorities that the Bank will not be liable..I will like to address the issue of NEGLIGENCE of which you have raised.
Negligence in itself is not a one way street as it is one of the most complex principles in the law of Tort..just as u may know that d tort of negligence is not actionable per se I.e actionable without proof of special damage like the tort of tresspas..for you to establish the tort of negligence u must establish 3things(Duty of care, breach, damages) and should you fail in one then your case is invalid.
Equally note that not every act of carelessness or negligence is actionable as LORD WRIGHT explained in the case of LOCHGELLY IRON V McMullan, he posited that "in strict legal analysis, negligence means more than heedless or careless conduct whether in omission or commission. it properly connotes the complex concept of duty, breach and damages thereby suffered by the person to whom the duty is owing"
thus in dis case u may be able to establish that there is a Duty of Care owned by the bank to the customer, but in actual fact the Duty is that of safe keeping of the customer's money of which falls under their possession,until then there is no duty of care.
The next element to prove if you successfully prove that there was a duty of care owed is that there was a BREACH of that DUTY, and this is the part that occupies the most time of the court as it looks at several elements including the REASONABLE MAN's TEST..other elements include the likelihood of harm and measures to avoid the harm..I will not bore u with lengthy notes because it is a long issue.
But in Brief conclusion the Bank's lawyer just need to state to the court that the likelihood of harm (the coming of robbers) into the bank is not frequent and even if it is frequent the provision of security guards will suffice and will exclude the bank from any attack therefrom as it could be seen that measures were taken to forestall the act you can see the Case of BOLTON V STONE..remember the Law does not require the doing of the impossible, so once necessary precaution is taken you are freed from liability that is why we have a Defence called AN ACT OF GOD under the tort of NUISANCE..
Finally since the tort of Negligence is not actionable per se you can't even go ahead to prove damages when you have failed in the other two elements. cases where you can easily hold the bank on negligence include, unauthorized publication of your account, injury with the bank equipments negligently displayed, drinking of contaminated water frm d banks water dispenser,injury from slippery floor etc..

Brilliant.

purplish: As a follow up to what a majority of legal opinions here have posited, since you are still in posession of your cash and have not made your intentions known to deposit such cash, you ordinarily do not have a case.

However, I think that you can make a strong case where your counsel can prove that the bank was negligent or lax in areas of securing its premises and customers. I do not have any legal authority to back this up, but it would be a good thing for our courts to address such nouveau situations to fit into today's Nigerian society. Law was made for man, and not man for the law.

read the authorities we cited above. Use it to back ur argument up. It has been decided by our court in salami v savannah bnk.

miknero: Dear Poster,
First let me start by congratulating you for making fb on this special new year day. Am happy this topic is coming timely and since its my field of study I would help in clearing the air.
Simply the bank can't be sue for no reason. The relationship between the bank and any depositor is called bank-coustomer relationship and it only subsits when you open and accout with the bank n deposit money which has not been established here. The money though within the presmises of the bank is not yet in coustody of the bank.Abnitio,(in law it can be seen as negligence on the side of the owner or an act of God. In conclusion the customer can't have any case or damage against the bank.

can't believe ths. Did you pass your law of tort exam? Are you reading law in ebsu or esuth ?

Here is a clear case of establishing a reasonable doubt to ascertain if actually ur were robbed and hw much xactly were u robbed of.
In the case of liability, the bank owes its customer a legal duty to protect him or her within the banking hall for his transaction.
If noticed are openly given about cars being parked at owner's risk why nt the same for robbed cash in the banking hall?
Once u are in a banking hall for cash lodgment or u just withdrew cash, u have the right to protection of urself and ur cash. Ur business ends when u leave the bank premises!
The burden of prove here is establishng a reasonable doubt. If its being liable, The bank is liable!

@ OP, Since it was theft, I don't think you can sue, but the bank has a responsibility to pay back the money if it was already recorded in their system.


http://www.karosstoryblog..com

For those saying that the bank has no responsibility as long as the person has not deposited the cash, that is not true, the bank owes the customers a duty of care within their Banking hall as the customer came to conduct business with them. As for verifying how much the customer had in his possession, proper investigations will be done to determine the probability of the customer having such money's . Many Nigerians don't know their rights and that is why they walk away from such issues. Banks have insurance to cover such matters, and as Legit said such a case , especially in issues of death or injury, would hardly ever go to court, the bank will settle. I doubt anyone would embark on a law suit with a bank frivolously.

rozayx5:

then its gone, no one is to blame

Once thé money is still with u, d bank will not be hold responsible for it. But, immediately u av paid and d teller is stamped, they are responsible cos its d évidence. They wldnt even wait for u to sue them cos Its in their custody already.

DoubleFaith: The Bank will be liable 'if and only if' your money was duly confirmed and your teller signed and stamped with you in custody of your copy. Aside that it's OYO.
Even at the point of confirmation i.e counting of your cash by the Bank's staff (Teller), if he/she did not sign and stamp your ticket that cash was confirmed and collected, sorry there is NO transaction and the bank will not be liable. 'Law of contract.'

u are right.