“Learned Counsel for the appellants was probably led into making this erroneous submission by the fact that in English law there are some old authorities in support of the theory that a gratuitous bailee is liable only for gross negligence. We wish however, to draw attention to the fact that, it is no longer good law to import the so-called distinction between negligence and gross negligence into a case of bailment. Viewed in the sense of a breach of the duty to take care, which is really what concerns us in this case, it seems to us that there are no degrees of negligence. Any breach of duty of care, whether grave or venial which caused a loss constitutes, in our view, negligence. Indeed, the trend in English law today clearly supports the stand which we have taken on this matter.” Per D. O. IBEKWE, J.S.C. in CHIEF D.O. OGUGUA V. ARMELS TRANSPORT LTD. (1974-LCER-918-SC) at P. 6, Para. A.