Bill v Public Utilities Corporation (CS 140 of 2022) [2024] SCSC 134 (27 June 2024)

Bill v Public Utilities Corporation (CS 140 of 2022) [2024] SCSC 134 (27 June 2024)

The Defendant is liable in delict for the Plaintiff's electrocution as the live wire was under its care in a public place, and the Plaintiff's evidence was more credible. The claim is not prescribed as the Civil Code's five-year prescription applies, and notice was properly given. No contributory negligence was established. Damages for loss of income and moral damage were awarded based on available evidence and reasonable assessment.

Citation
[2024] SCSC 134
Parties
Plaintiff: Marshall Bill; Defendant: Public Utilities Corporation
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
27 June 2024
Case Number
CS 140 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Delictual Action / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff
Legal Topics
Faute, Electrocution, Public Utilities Liability, Damages Assessment, Prescription
Source Language
English
Tort Law Faute Electrocution Public Utilities Liability Damages Assessment Prescription

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marshall Bill

Plaintiff

Public Utilities Corporation

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Delictual Action / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant is liable in delict for the Plaintiff's electrocution under Article 1382 of the Civil Code
  2. 2 Whether the claim is prescribed under section 18(1) of the Public Utilities Corporation Act or Article 2271(1) of the Civil Code
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiff contributed to his injuries (contributory negligence)

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant is liable in delict for the Plaintiff's electrocution as the live wire was under its care in a public place, and the Plaintiff's evidence was more credible. The claim is not prescribed as the Civil Code's five-year prescription applies, and notice was properly given. No contributory negligence was established. Damages for loss of income and moral damage were awarded based on available evidence and reasonable assessment.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Plaintiff

Orders

  • Defendant to pay Plaintiff SR221,250.00 with interest and costs