Pitzer v Eskom (336/11) [2012] ZASCA 44 (29 March 2012)

Pitzer v Eskom (336/11) [2012] ZASCA 44 (29 March 2012)

Eskom, as an undertaker under the Electricity Act, bore the statutory onus to rebut the presumption of negligence after the appellant was injured by electricity in its substation. The evidence established that Eskom's designated official failed to secure the high voltage yard and live chamber, leaving them open and accessible, which was negligent given the foreseeable risk of electrocution even to a qualified electrician. The appellant's entry into the live chamber was not justified by the circumstances, and he failed to make adequate enquiries before exposing himself to danger, rendering him contributorily negligent. Both parties were equally at fault, and liability was apportioned at...

Citation
[2012] ZASCA 44
Parties
Appellant: Hendrik Johannes Pitzer; Respondent: Eskom
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 March 2012
Case Number
336/11
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Outcome
Appeal upheld; trial court's order set aside and substituted with declaration of fifty percent liability for damages.
Judges
Nugent, Cachalia, Bosielo, Petse, Boruchowitz
Legal Topics
Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Electricity Act Liability, Aquilian Action, Presumption of Negligence
Delict Negligence Contributory Negligence Electricity Act Liability Aquilian Action Presumption of Negligence

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

Hendrik Johannes Pitzer

Appellant

Eskom

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Eskom, as an undertaker under the Electricity Act, was negligent in failing to secure the electrical substation, resulting in injury to the appellant.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was contributorily negligent in entering the live chamber and coming into contact with live equipment.
  3. 3 Whether Eskom rebutted the statutory presumption of negligence under section 26 of the Electricity Act.

Ratio Decidendi

Eskom, as an undertaker under the Electricity Act, bore the statutory onus to rebut the presumption of negligence after the appellant was injured by electricity in its substation. The evidence established that Eskom's designated official failed to secure the high voltage yard and live chamber, leaving them open and accessible, which was negligent given the foreseeable risk of electrocution even to a qualified electrician. The appellant's entry into the live chamber was not justified by the circumstances, and he failed to make adequate enquiries before exposing himself to danger, rendering him contributorily negligent. Both parties were equally at fault, and liability was apportioned at...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; trial court's order set aside and substituted with declaration of fifty percent liability for damages.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds with costs.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside and substituted with: 'It is declared that the defendant is liable for fifty per cent of the plaintiff’s proven or agreed damages.'