6 they received the news that one of their buses was involved in an accident. They went to the scene and saw what had happened. He was not there when the accident took place. What he stated regarding the circumstance of the accident were information he derived from other people not what he saw. It is therefore, a hearsay as it is not a testimony of a witness who relates what he knows personally. By section 38 of the Evidence Act, 2011 such evidence is not admissible. See also Buhari v. Obasanjo (2005)7 NWLR (pt.910) 241 at 435. It is a fundamental requirement in a claim for negligence for the Plaintiff to prove by evidence the actual breach of the legal duty of care owed by the defendant otherwise the action must fail. I have in mind the case of Benson v. Otubor (1975)3 S. C. 9. The driver of the bus is not called as a witness. The officers of the Police Traffic Division where the complaint was made were not called as witnesses. Those who took the measurement at the scene of the accident and apportioned blame were not called as witnesses. A blanket allegation of negligence in the pleading is not sufficient and quite apart from giving explicit evidence of negligence, for the Plaintiff to succeed, he must also show the duty of care owed to him and its breach by the defendant. These, the Plaintiff did not do. The claim therefore, must fail. The action is therefore hereby dismissed SGD JUDGE 27th February, 2013