P.M obo O.M v Eskom Holdings Limited (29591/21) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1127 (31 August 2023)

P.M obo O.M v Eskom Holdings Limited (29591/21) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1127 (31 August 2023)

The court found that Eskom Holdings Limited, as an undertaker under the Electricity Act, bore the statutory onus to prove it was not negligent in relation to the injuries suffered by the minor child. Eskom failed to present any evidence to discharge this onus, including not calling witnesses to support its plea. The minor child, due to his age and lack of sophistication regarding electricity, could not reasonably be expected to appreciate the risks involved. The facts established that the child was injured by coming into contact with a live wire belonging to Eskom, which was not properly secured or marked with warnings. The defendant's failure to take reasonable steps to prevent such harm...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 1127
Parties
Plaintiff: P[...] M[...] obo O[...] M[...]; Defendant: Eskom Holdings Limited
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 August 2023
Case Number
29591/21
Procedural Posture
Civil Liability / Liability Separated From Quantum; Quantum Postponed Sine Die
Outcome
Defendant held 100% liable for damages; quantum postponed sine die.
Judges
N P Mngqibisa-Thusi
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Electricity Act, Apportionment of Damages
Delict Civil Procedure Negligence Duty of Care Electricity Act Apportionment of Damages

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P[...] M[...] obo O[...] M[...]

Plaintiff

Eskom Holdings Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Liability / Liability Separated From Quantum; Quantum Postponed Sine Die

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Eskom Holdings Limited was negligent in failing to prevent the minor child from coming into contact with a live electrical wire.
  2. 2 Whether the minor child contributed to his own injuries through negligence or voluntary assumption of risk.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant discharged the statutory onus under section 26 of the Electricity Act to prove absence of negligence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Eskom Holdings Limited, as an undertaker under the Electricity Act, bore the statutory onus to prove it was not negligent in relation to the injuries suffered by the minor child. Eskom failed to present any evidence to discharge this onus, including not calling witnesses to support its plea. The minor child, due to his age and lack of sophistication regarding electricity, could not reasonably be expected to appreciate the risks involved. The facts established that the child was injured by coming into contact with a live wire belonging to Eskom, which was not properly secured or marked with warnings. The defendant's failure to take reasonable steps to prevent such harm...

Court Disposition

Defendant held 100% liable for damages; quantum postponed sine die.

Orders

  • The defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for 100% of the agreed or proven damages.
  • The defendant must pay the agreed or taxed High Court costs as between party and party, including the costs of counsel.