HomeContemporary Legal issuesThe Thin Line Between Prank and Harm: Appraising the Possible Legal Liabilities...

The Thin Line Between Prank and Harm: Appraising the Possible Legal Liabilities of Social Media Pranks in Nigeria.

Date:

Akinkuotu Adeola Fortress

ABSTRACT

This article seeks to explore the delicate balance of prank and harm in light of  the legal liabilities that could arise from a prank. Prank involves a practical joke or a mischievous act  which  though for fun, can cause harm to the person being pranked. More so, the consequences of a prank is one which could be far reaching if not well curtailed, especially in Nigeria. This article therefore using the doctrinal method  examines  the possible legal liabilities of a prank in Nigeria, relying on local legislations and findings of previous authors on the subject. The aim of this article includes to educate the readers on the civil and criminal liabilities that could arise from a prank as well as possible recommendations that can be implemented by both victims of pranks, pranksters and the government in regulating pranks in Nigeria.

INTRODUCTION

The Britannica Dictionary defined prank as ” a trick that is done to someone usually as a joke”.[1] It is an act of humorous deception.[2] For the purpose of this study nevertheless, a prank is a trick played on a person for the purpose of entertainment. On the other hand, Harm is a physical or mental damage.

The use of prank for content creation has been on the rise in the society.[3] It is one of the most common source of entertainment for people, especially on social media in recent times. Most content creators post prank videos on different social media including Facebook, YouTube. However, pranks can be dangerous in nature as it can lead to a physical injury or mental damage based on the harm inflicted. This can also lead to emotional and psychological trauma. Also, most people do not want to be pranked even though they enjoy watching these contents online because of fear of being ridiculed[4].

In examining the pros and cons of a prank, many content creators would often argue that a prank is a normal way of having fun with other people, since no one is necessarily intended to get hurt from the pranks. Nonetheless, this assertion has however been debunked by recent facts and figures showing that people could die or get hurt from pranks. Their properties can also be damaged from wrongly played pranks.[5]

Furthermore, a prank can either be positive or negative depending on the extent of it. A positive prank is one which may not necessarily have an adverse effect on people or one that should not have a long effect on people and the environment. However, a negative prank leaves a permanent effect that can scar a person or his environment.

In Nigeria, it is important to note that prank has been given limited attention, especially as to the possible harm caused by the Act. More so, not much has been said of the legal implications of these acts on the victims and society at large. This attitude towards prank content on the social media is one that could without doubt pose so much problem in coming years, if conscientious efforts are not taken to stop it.

Based on the above therefore, this work has decided to examine the civil and criminal liabilities that could arise from a prank, and remedies available to victims who suffer dire consequences from an act of prank. Similarly, the eggshell skull principle of tort will be considered to evaluate the legal implication of a prank that causes an individual much damage than the others, owing to their inherent health status.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Criminal liability can be described as the legal consequences which arises from committing a crime. Sequel to this, there are two elements that are required in order to make a person criminally liable for a an act or omission prohibited under the law. They include the Actus Reus and Mens Rea.[6]

The Actus Reus means the physical element, it involves an act or omission that constitutes a crime as required by the statute. While Mens Rea means “guilty mind” in Latin, and it is the mental element or criminal intent of a crime. These elements are important in deciding criminal liability.[7]

Under the Nigerian Criminal law, a person who pranks another person can be liable for different acts and omissions under the code. For the purpose of this study, the criminal acts to be examined in terms of criminal liability includes the offence of negligent and reckless act capable of endangering life, assault, manslaughter, destruction of property, impersonation and disorderly conducts.

RECKLESS AND NEGLIGENT ACTS

Under the Nigerian Criminal Code, acts that can inflict injuries or endanger a person’s life are unlawful in Nigeria. In fact, it is a misdemeanor that can be punished by imprisonment for one year. Therefore, in situations where a person pranks another, causing the person harm through his or her recklessness, he will be liable of an offence.[8] Also, where he does any act or omits to take proper precautions against any probable danger from, any explosive in his possession, used in course of his prank, he could also be guilty of the misdemeanour.[9]

ASSAULT

Assault is an unlawful act in accordance with Section 253[10] in Nigeria. Overall, it is an intentional act which involves the application of force to a person without their consent. It includes all forms of acts that puts one in apprehension of danger or acts that involves the use of unwanted physical force. For instance, where a prankster decides to points a gun at another person for a content, even though it is not loaded, it is an assault[11]. The reason behind this is that, there is a threat of violence as the victim thought that the gun was in fact loaded.[12]

MANSLAUGHTER

This is a term for “homicide” and it is an unlawful killing of a person with the absence of malice.[13] It is an act of a person which causes the death of another in a circumstance that he does not intend the death. Thus where a person dies as a result of a prank, even with such consequences unintended, it does not absolve them from this. In light of this, pranksters should always exercise care when carrying out their pranks on people by not involving in dangerous things that can cause grievous bodily harm or lead to their death.

DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY

The Criminal Code[14] provides that any person that destroys the property of another maliciously will be guilty of an offence and punishable to two years imprisonment. This criminal liability could arise in pranks that involves damaging of properties. Such individuals could  be liable where the effect of their prank includes damage to properties that also endangers people’s lives.

IMPERSONATION

Impersonation under the Criminal code, is an act of an individual, who with the intention to defraud, falsely represents himself to be another person or that he occupies the position of another. As a matter of fact, this is a felony that attracts up to three years imprisonment.[15] Prank contents in form of Impersonating a police or military officer could lead to criminal liability under this Act where it defrauds a person..

DISORDERLY CONDUCT

Furthermore, the Act states that any individual who conducts himself in a way likely to cause a breach of peace in any public place, will be deemed to be idle and disorderly. Such persons may be arrested without warrant and will be guilty of a simple offence and further liable to one month imprisonment.[16] Therefore, when an individual pranks another in any way that leads to the breach of peace, he will be liable for an offence.

CIVIL LIABILITY

Haven examined the possible criminal liabilities of a prank, civil liabilities on the other hand includes civil wrongs that can be remedied by civil actions, filed by private individuals. The resultant effect of a civil liability where declared, often include an imposition of financial obligations for the harm or loss suffered by the plaintiff. This is also known as damages.

Flowing from the above, the civil wrongs which could arise in a prank, thereby warranting a civil action which includes: assault, battery, false Imprisonment, defamation of character, and privacy breach.

ASSUALT

Assault under the purview of tort is one which requires no form of physical harm, but rather the mere apprehension of harm. For instance in the case of Stephen v Myers[17], the defendant who approached the claimant with a clenched fist and was stopped by someone, was held liable by the court for assault even though no harm was done.[18] Therefore, content creators in relation to pranks who puts people at the fear of harm could be liable under tort for assault.

BATTERY

Battery in tort refers to the intentional application of force on another person without their permission. It should be noted that projection of heat, smell, noise, and other things on a person in a way that can harm a person is battery.[19] The application of force does not have to be done directly to be guilty of battery.[20] For instance throwing a stone or other objects at people for a prank content will suffice.

FALSE IMPRISONMENT

False imprisonment is the process of restraining a person in a manner that is not expressly or impliedly authorised by law. The law aims at protecting individuals freedom from restraint and right to liberty.  For false imprisonment to occur, there need not be actual physical constraint. There must be an intention to deprive the claimant of his liberty.

In Burton v Davies,[21] where the plaintiff rode on the motor vehicle driven by the defendant and was prevented from alighting at his destination. It was held to be false imprisonment.

From the above, it applies that where a prank involves the deprivation of a person’s liberty, the prankster could actually be liable in tort for false imprisonment.

DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER

Defamation is any false written or spoken information about a person, which can harm the reputation of an individual, business, livelihoods or an organization. Defamation includes both libel and slander. It involves slander which is a defamatory statement by using spoken words, signs and gestures and Libel, a defamatory statement that is written, typed or in a readable format. A pranster could be liable under this tort where he publishes an untrue information or makes a false representation about a party in a way that could affect their reputation.[22]

PRIVACY BREACH

The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria makes provision for the protection of individual privacy. This protection covers private information and activities a person does within their home, via a correspondence, telephone conversation and telegraphic communications. Therefore, while the constitution does not expressly prohibit pranks, a person who makes video recording of another, without their consent, for the purpose of a prank could be violating their right to privacy.[23]

EGG SHELL RULE UNDER THE NIGERIA CRIMINAL LAW

The eggshell skull rule is a common law doctrine that is also known as the “thin skull rule”. This principle will not allow an accused person to escape from liability even where the victim is more susceptible to injuries.[24] This principle is often described as ” take your victim as the way you find them”.[25]

In Dulieu v. White & Sons[26] the Judge opined:

“If a man is negligently run over or otherwise negligently injured in his body, it is no answer to the sufferer’s claim for damages that he would have suffered less injury, or no injury at all, if he had not had an unusually thin skull or an unusually weak heart”.[27]

Therefore, content creators owe a duty of care to citizens. Where they prank someone with serious health complications, they can be charged with criminal negligence, assault, manslaughter ecetra. They would be made to take responsibility for any harm caused as a result of their pranks, even in a situation where the injury becomes more severe as a result of the  pre-existing condition of such victim.

Also, they should be aware of the potential legal consequences of their actions and ensure that their pranks do not harm individuals or damage properties.[28] Pranksters who take undue advantage of their victims can be sued for compensation for loss or injury suffered as a result of the prank.

LEGAL DEFENCE

Haven considered the legal liabilities that could arise from a prank, it is also pertinent to examine the legal defences that could avail a prankster, provided the elements of this prank falls within the purview of these defences. The defences include: Consent (volenti non fit injuria), intoxication, insanity, self defence, lack of intention, contributory negligence.

To start with, Consent or volenti non fit injuria is a defence under the law. This implies that a person voluntarily agreed to place himself in a situation that can be harmful. Also, such person must have the legal and mental capacity to consent and it requires the absence of coercion. Where the victim has consented to participate in any form of prank, the content creator will not be held liable.

Also, by virtue of the Criminal Code, intoxication can be a defence where the individual charged for the crime, during the period where such act or omission was done, was not aware it was wrong or not aware of the things he was doing.[29] For instance where the content creator is intoxicated at the period of the action, he can plead this defence in the court.

More so, the plea of Insanity as a defence, the Act provides that a person will not be criminally liable for an act or omission in situations where such person has mental disease, that stops him from understanding his actions, or of the ability to control his actions. Therefore, a prankster who is affected by a mental health disease at the time of making such content, can use this defence.[30]

Furthermore, Self defence is another defence which involves a situation where the defendant uses a reasonable force to protect themselves or another person from harm.[31] Where the pranksters uses reasonable force in order to protect himself or a third party from harm, he can plead this defence.[32]

In addition, intention could be an important element in criminal offences. Thus for crimes of these particular type, the defence of lack of intention could be raised when an individual charged for a crime can show that their actions were unintentional, or the consequence of such act was unforeseeable. Where there is no intention to harm the person, he might not be liable.

Finally, Contributory Negligence. Where the claimants actions also contributes to the harm suffered, this could affect the extent of their claim. More so, while this does not completely absolve the defendant of liability, it acknowledges that the claimant played a part in causing the injury and therefore can not enjoy an absolute claim against the defendant.[33] In situation of a prank therefore, where the victims injuries are aggravated as a result of their own negligence, the victim may be limited in their claim against the prankster in damages.

LEGAL REMEDIES

Where the law creates a wrong, there is equally a remedy. In case of a violation involving a privacy breach, victims of prank videos circulated on social media can request for the removal of such content from the public, by filing a report with National Information Technology Development Agency (NITDA)[34]. More so, such media page could be apprehended for the prank and made to pay fines.

Also, another remedy available is damages. This is a sum of money that is paid to the aggrieved party in order to help them recover the loss they suffered. It is a monetary compensation for any injury or loss suffered due to a wrongful act of another. Therefore, victims of pranks where physical injuries or damage to properties was incurred,  can make the content creator liable for damages.[35]

More so, an injunction can be granted by the court, as an order refraining a person to do or stop doing a specific action. In respect to pranks, the court can compel an individual in refraining from possible acts likely to cause a breach of peace. More so, the circulation of an offensive prank content could be restrained by a court order.

Furthermore, victims of a prank which violates the right to privacy, may file a fundamental human right enforcement suit to enforce such right. Moreover, since consent is an important requirement in dealing with people’s data or intruding people’s private lives, where such consent is not given, the victim may make claims to remedy  such breach.

 CONCLUSION

Over the years, the Nigerian social media space has witnessed a rise in the amount of prank contents .This serves as a major source of entertainment and comedy for people on social media, and enrichment for the pranksters. However, from the foregoing, this activity can also be harmful to both individuals and the society at large. It is therefore important that legal regulations are put in place to find a balance between these activities and the quest for social order. Private rights should be protected to avoid cases of Injuries and consequential self helps. Individuals who are violated from a prank should equally feel free to pursue legal actions against unscrupulous pranksters. More so, a legislative/institutional regulation which provides permit or licenses to pranksters is necessary to regulate how social media pranks are carried out for the preservation of individual and collective right within the Nigerian state.


Fortress is a graduate of law from Adekunle Ajasin University, Akungba-Akoko, and an intern at QuillCraft Research Institute. +2347037840251 Adeolafortress@gmail.com


Footnotes

[1] The Britannica Dictionary ictionary, “Prank”. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/prank# 3rd January, 2024.

[2] R. Bauman, Story, Performance, and Event: Contextual Studies in Oral Narrative, Cambridge UP, Cambridge 1986, p. 144.

[3] Livinus A., Woyopwa S., “Prank Content Creation and its Implication on the Nigerian Society: An Exploratory Study of Facebook Prank Videos” (2023) Journal of Emerging Technologies 3(1), 23-29.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Rangers, “Pranks Can Be Harmful”. Acranger (26th September, 2019). Retrieved from https://acranger.com/2013/09/26/editorial-prankscan-be-harmful/ 3rd January, 2024.

[6] Oreoluwa O., “Criminal Liability Under the Nigerian Law: An Examination of the Liability of Non-Legal Entities” (2022) Canadian Social Science 18(1) 36-41

[7] Morris K, “False Online Publication Injurious to Another: An Examination of Prank as a Defence Under Nigerian Law” (2019) Aluko & Oyebode Newsletter 1-9

[8] Section 343, Criminal Code Act 1916

[9] Ibid

[10] Section 253, Criminal Code Act 1916

[11] R v St George (1840) 9 C&P 483

[12] R v Barrett (1995) 1 SCR 752. See also Stephen v Myers (1830) 172 ER 735

[13] Section 317, Criminal Code Act 1916

[14] Section 451, Criminal Code Act 1916

[15] Section 484, Criminal Code Act 1916

[16] Section 249, Criminal Code Act 1916

[17] Supra.

[18] (1830) 172 ER 735

[19] Akintola V Adegbenro

[20] DPP V K (1990) 1 WLR 1067

[21] Burton v Davies (1953) St R Qd 26

[22] Section 375, Criminal Code Act 1916

[23] Section 37, 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria

[24] Lanase U., “Eggshell Rule Under the Nigerian Legal System: Liabilities of Content Creators” (2023) The Jurist Journal of Law University of Ilorin  Vol. 26, 109-118.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Dulieu v. White & Sons (1901) 2 KB 669 at 679

[27] See also, section 311 of the Criminal Code Law of Lagos State

[28] Livinus A., Woyopwa S., “Prank Content Creation and its Implication on the Nigerian Society: An Exploratory Study of Facebook Prank Videos” (2023) Journal of Emerging Technologies 3(1), 23-29.

[29] Section 29, Criminal Code Act 1916

[30] Section 28, Criminal Code Act 1916

[31] Section 286, Criminal Code Act 1916

[32] Tajudeen Ajiboye., “A Critical Examination of Defences to Criminal Liability in Nigeria: Lessons from Other Jurisdictions”. Being an Undergraduate Project submitted to the Faculty of Law, Osun State University in fulfilment of the requirement for Bachelor of Laws Degree, 2014.

[33] Oluwakemi A., “Compensating Victims of Personal Injuries in Tort: The Nigerian Experience in Fifty Years” (2013) Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3111539 23rd January, 2024

[34] National Information Technology Development Agency Act 2007

[35] Minjal S., “Prank: In The Eyes of The Law” (2022)  Journal of Legal Research and Juridical Sciences 2(3) 2254-2269

Share on

Place your
Adver here

For more details, contact

Related articles:

Sanitizing the Judiciary: Task That Must be Urgently Done (2)

By Muiz Banire, SAN  This further underscores the significance of...

Sanitizing the Judiciary: Task That Must be Urgently Done (1)

By Muiz Banire, SAN  What really is unveiling in the last...