Eskom Holdings Ltd v Hendricks (262/2004) [2005] ZASCA 46; [2005] 3 All SA 415 (SCA); 2005 (5) SA 503 (SCA) (27 May 2005)

Eskom Holdings Ltd v Hendricks (262/2004) [2005] ZASCA 46; [2005] 3 All SA 415 (SCA); 2005 (5) SA 503 (SCA) (27 May 2005)

Eskom failed to rebut the statutory presumption of negligence under the Electricity Act, as the anti-climbing device installed on the pylon was inadequate and could be easily dismantled without tools, failing to provide the required protection. The court found that a reasonable person would have ensured the device could not be bypassed so simply, especially given the foreseeability of children climbing pylons. Regarding the cross-appeal, the court held that the injured child, J., was culpae incapax at the time of the incident. His conduct in attempting to touch the insulators was impulsive and typical of a child of tender age, indicating an inability to act in accordance with any...

Citation
[2005] ZASCA 46
Parties
Appellant: Eskom Holdings Ltd; Respondent: Jacob Johannes Hendricks obo J.J.H
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 May 2005
Case Number
262/2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal and Cross Appeal From Court a Quo on Liability for Damages
Outcome
Eskom's appeal dismissed with costs; respondent's cross-appeal upheld with costs; order of court a quo altered to hold Eskom liable for damages suffered by the minor, with costs including qualifying fees of experts.
Judges
Scott, Streicher, Brand, Lewis, Mlambo
Legal Topics
Negligence, Culpae Incapax, Electricity Act Liability, Adequate Protection of Pylons, Impulsive Child Behavior
Delict Land and Property Negligence Culpae Incapax Electricity Act Liability Adequate Protection of Pylons Impulsive Child Behavior

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eskom Holdings Ltd

Appellant

Jacob Johannes Hendricks obo J.J.H

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal and Cross Appeal From Court a Quo on Liability for Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Eskom was negligent in failing to adequately protect its pylon against unauthorised climbing, especially by children.
  2. 2 Whether the anti-climbing device (ACD) installed by Eskom constituted adequate protection as required by law.
  3. 3 Whether the injured child, J., had delictual capacity (culpae capax) at the time of the incident.

Ratio Decidendi

Eskom failed to rebut the statutory presumption of negligence under the Electricity Act, as the anti-climbing device installed on the pylon was inadequate and could be easily dismantled without tools, failing to provide the required protection. The court found that a reasonable person would have ensured the device could not be bypassed so simply, especially given the foreseeability of children climbing pylons. Regarding the cross-appeal, the court held that the injured child, J., was culpae incapax at the time of the incident. His conduct in attempting to touch the insulators was impulsive and typical of a child of tender age, indicating an inability to act in accordance with any...

Court Disposition

Eskom's appeal dismissed with costs; respondent's cross-appeal upheld with costs; order of court a quo altered to hold Eskom liable for damages suffered by the minor, with costs including qualifying fees of experts.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
  • The cross-appeal is upheld with costs, including the costs of two counsel.