Eskom lost in its bid not to present evidence or legal argument to defend a damages claim against the parents of a child who claimed that he was severely injured when he stepped on a live power cable laying on the ground.
The parents of the child turned to the Bloemfontein High Court to claim damages on behalf of their son. They called witnesses and presented evidence about what had happened on the day of the incident.
The parents claimed that the power cable on which their son had stepped caused electrical burns on his right hand and arm and both his feet.
The child was one of the witnesses who gave evidence about what had happened. He testified that on the day of the incident, he went to an open piece of land to look for his sister.
He said he had to duck under an overhead power line that was hanging low. In doing so, he did not notice an electrical wire on the ground and he stepped on the wire.
In asking the court to put an end to the case after the plaintiffs’ witnesses testified, without making a ruling on liability, Eskom said there was no evidence of the precise location at which the incident happened.
It said that there was no evidence that the electrical structures, poles and power lines at the place of the incident belonged to Eskom. It was further contended that the evidence did not support the plaintiffs’ case as initially set out in their summons.
The parents initially claimed that the child came into contact with electrical power lines, which were suspended above the ground and supported by poles and/or pylons. They later said the child had stepped on the electrical power line with both feet.
The parents handed pictures to the court of the place where the incident allegedly happened, and no electrical wires lying on the ground are visible in these pictures. The pictures also showed the burns on the minor child’s body, including the bandages covering the child’s feet, Eskom said.
Eskom further argued that there was no evidence showing who the owner of the land in question was, or whose electrical infrastructure existed on that land. In the plaintiffs’ particulars of claim, it is alleged that Eskom was the owner or was responsible for the power lines on the premises where the accident occurred.
But the power giant said there was no evidence supporting this allegation.
The parents meanwhile joined the Letsemeng Local Municipality as a third party to the action, claiming that the municipality was in fact the registered owner of the property and/or the power lines concerned.
Eskom said on this basis the court must rather find that the fault lay with the municipality and not with them.
Judge PJ Loubser said the evidence so far in this case was that the incident occurred on the farm known as Rorichshoop, as alleged by the parents. He also pointed out that the court was handed pictures to suggest injuries to the child.
While it is true that there is no evidence that the electrical infrastructure at that place belonged to Eskom, or that it carried the responsibility for the power lines on the farmland, the court is of the opinion that the parents had reached the minimum threshold where a court, applying its mind reasonably, could or might find in their favour.
The court, in turning down Eskom’s application, said it was in the interest of justice that the case should be decided on the evidence that all the parties might choose to place before the court.
Pretoria News