I don't know which section to ask this question. @Mod. Pls move my thread to appropriate section if this is not the appropriate one.

Some fellows and i were arguing in my area today whether banks could be sued for money lost that
had not been paid into one's account or not.

Those that supported the notion argued that Banks could be sued "because banks have a duty to guarantee security to customers once they are inside the bank". They argued further that they wouldn't have lost their money if they were not in the bank and since they lost it to bank robberies then they should be compensated. They gave the analogy of how most formal organisations removed themselves from any responsibility that may arise as result of car stolen in their premises and that's why the statement 'ALL CARS ARE PARKED AT OWNERS' RISK' can seen in their parking spaces/garage.

Those who opposed it argued that "since no transaction has taken place then banks cannot be sued for compensation".

Who is right between the two? Please I need your opinion as regard this. I want you to back your comment(s) with facts. And what does Nigerian law say about this?


Wow, I can't believe it , my thread made fp...Ordinarily, I won't be bothered about my thread making front page but I am elated because of two reasons:
1. Today is the beginning of a new year (01-01-2014) so making front page is symbolic and this is the beginning of many more to come.
2. This is the first time my thread will make front page.
#quickly wears cloth and runs to church to give testimony #
I give honour and glory to God for making me see this day. Many thought that my thread wouldn't make fp but God disappointed them...
Haters, go and ...

If you know that you have facts as regard the question, don't just view; make sure you comment.

if u haven't deposited ur money and it got stloen, it's ur loss but if u have just deposited and the bank got robbed immediately then it's the bank's loss.

naijacutee: To help us understand the argument better, do you mean that the money is deposited in the bank and shortly after, a bank robbery takes place?

The money has not been deposited...

Adinije: if u haven't deposited ur money and it got stloen, it's ur loss but if u have just deposited and the bank got robbed immediately then it's the bank's loss.

So the customers who haven't deposited their money won't be compensated?... Since the customers were robbed inside the bank, does that not count for something? ...

anything (gadgets, money gold car)u take to the bank is still at ur risk except if it has been deposited

kaka22:
The money has not been deposited...

then its gone, no one is to blame

Very funny and yet serious.Reminds me of a story told of a man who thieves came to his house.The man begged the thieves to allow him pay the landlord also living in the same building house rent after which they are free to claim it.

Boy the money is lost.

The bank can not be held liable for what they have not taken procession of. The twist is that there is what is called occupiers liability. If i fell and broke my arm within the bank premises due to a wet floor i can sue and get compensated if the bank did not make diligent effort to inform me of the possible hazard....just like they warned that my vehicle is parked at my risk within their compound.
I'm not a lawyer any learned fellow can help us further.

.

Love this thread, the question and I will be willing to learn from it.

LEMME LEARN HERE

If its not deposited,its your loss since there is no evidence to prove you were with money at all.Even if you got robbed after withdrawing,the bank is only liable to anything kept with them

nupera: The bank can not be held liable for what they have not taken procession of. The twist is that there is what is called occupiers liability. If i fell and broke my arm within the bank premises due to a wet floor i can sue and get compensated if the bank did not make diligent effort to inform me of the possible hazard....just like they warned that my vehicle is parked at my risk within their compound.
I'm not a lawyer any learned fellow can help us further.

it depends on the facts of d case. The principle of law that governs ths kind of issue is exclusion of liability. If the notice was boldly written and placed where anybody could see it, the bnk will escape liability. If the exact opposite is the case, the bnk would be liable if the plaintiff could establish an act of bailment.

Yes, you can sue the bank because, they are suppose to be responsible for the security of the people inside the bank.

Abi na d bank go sue u

I was here

No, u can not, once u are out of the bank, U are on ur Own. u hav no other business with d bank

yes u can in nollywood movie.

So how can d bank verify how much that was stolen from u?abi do they ccall d robbers to confirm how much to pay u?

no

Brb

No u can'nt?

Where is that guy that always shout I am a lawyer

Please,is a bank responsible for their customers' security/safety within the bank's premises?

I'll tak dem 2 my father's court

A question of fact like ths is dependent on the circumstances of the case. A bank may escape liability if the customer's lost was occasioned by his negligence. If it happened that the customer's lost was due to the bank's negligence, the bank would be held liable for the simple fact that they owe the said customer a duty of care to protect his money withn it's premises. Ths is the general rule. Other exceptions may work to negate the bank's liability. Ancilliary to ths is that ths question is a matter of evidence. It can go either way. Thanks

They can be sued, but hey, they've already given You your money, so, its left for You to protect Your money yourself.


You can't come to my house, then, on Your way outta my house, some armed robbers come to my house, then cart away with Your iPhone 5s, then ask me to pay for it.

You wan die?



Check on this interesting thread. » www.nairaland.com/1576405/dubai-puts-record-setting-fireworks-show

I wouldn't want such a case.