The Free State High Court has overturned a judgment that absolved Eskom from liability after a minor child was electrocuted by an electric cable lying on the ground at a farm near Koffiefontein.

The Free State High Court (Bloemfontein) found that Eskom had failed to rebut a statutory presumption of negligence in terms of the Electricity Regulation Act.

The judgment, handed down on 18 September, upheld the appeal brought by the child’s mother, who had instituted the damages claim on behalf of her son.

According to The Star, the court ordered Eskom to pay the child’s proven or agreed damages, as well as the costs of the appeal and the proceedings in the court below.

The incident happened on 9 February 2020, when the minor was electrocuted on Rorichshoop farm in Koffiefontein.

According to the judgment, the child stepped on an electric cable lying on the ground, resulting in burns to his feet and arm.

His grandmother testified that she had frequently visited the area to collect wood and had seen low-hanging powerlines and a cable on the ground.

She said the cable remained in that condition for more than a year. A central issue in the case was whether Eskom was responsible for the electrical infrastructure where the child was injured.

Eskom had cited Letsemeng Local Municipality as a third party and maintained that the relevant farm and power lines belonged to the municipality.

However, the appeal court found that the ownership of the land was not decisive.

The court noted that Eskom power lines cross properties belonging to private individuals, government entities, and other state-owned bodies, and that the relevant question was whether the power line was an Eskom line transmitting or distributing electricity.

According to The Star, the judges found the trial court had misdirected itself by deciding the matter against the child’s mother without Eskom producing credible evidence to rebut the statutory presumption.

The appeal court said that, based on the accepted evidence and Eskom’s own counsel’s statements, the most plausible inference was that Eskom was the applicable licensee in relation to the power line.

The appeal was upheld, with costs, including counsel’s fees on scale B and the costs of the applications for leave to appeal.

The original order was set aside and replaced with an order declaring that the plaintiff had succeeded 100% on the merits.

Eskom was held liable for the child’s proven or agreed damages.

The ruling does not determine the amount of damages payable. The parties had previously agreed that the damages issue would be dealt with separately if the plaintiff succeeded on merits.

Full report in The Star