Civil Liability of Electricity Network Operators

1. Introduction

Civil liability of electricity network operators concerns the legal responsibility of an electricity distributor, transmission operator, or other licensed network operator when its electricity infrastructure causes death, personal injury, property damage, fire, or other financial loss.

Electricity networks involve high-voltage lines, transformers, substations, meters, cables and distribution equipment. If these facilities are poorly maintained, incorrectly operated, or left in a dangerous condition, the operator may face civil claims.

In South Africa, the principal statutory provision is section 25 of the Electricity Regulation Act 4 of 2006 (ERA). It provides an important evidentiary rule: where civil proceedings against a licensee arise from damage or injury caused by electricity generated, transmitted or distributed by that licensee, the damage or injury is deemed to have been caused by the licensee's negligence unless credible evidence shows otherwise. (SAFLII)

2. Basis of Civil Liability

An electricity network operator may incur liability through:

negligence;

breach of a statutory duty;

delictual liability;

contractual obligations;

unsafe maintenance or operation of infrastructure; or

statutory presumptions such as section 25 of the ERA.

Ordinary delictual liability generally requires proof of wrongfulness, negligence, causation and legally recognised damage.

However, section 25 changes the evidentiary position in qualifying electricity-related claims. The claimant does not have to establish negligence in the ordinary way at the beginning. The statutory presumption operates unless the operator provides credible evidence to the contrary.

3. Duties of Network Operators

A network operator is expected to take reasonable measures to ensure that its infrastructure is safely designed, operated, inspected and maintained.

Potential failures include:

failure to inspect power lines;

defective transformers or substations;

inadequate protection against electrical faults;

failure to respond to reported dangerous conditions;

unsafe cables or poles;

inadequate warning signs;

failure to isolate dangerous equipment; and

unreasonable failure to repair known defects.

The precise duty depends on the operator's licence, control of the infrastructure, applicable legislation, contractual arrangements and the circumstances of the accident.

4. Eskom Holdings Ltd v Hendricks 2005 (5) SA 503 (SCA)

This is an important authority concerning statutory liability for electricity-related injury. The case established the significance of the statutory presumption concerning negligence. Where the statutory provision applies, the electricity licensee bears the evidentiary burden of showing that it was not negligent, or that its negligence did not cause the damage.

The principle is important because electricity infrastructure is potentially dangerous and the operator normally has much greater technical knowledge about its equipment than an injured member of the public.

5. Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd v Botha (2026 ZASCA 48)

A recent Supreme Court of Appeal case involved claims against Eskom after fires allegedly damaged farms. The claimants relied on section 25 of the ERA, arguing that the statutory presumption applied to the damage allegedly caused by Eskom's electricity infrastructure. The case illustrates an important point: statutory electricity liability depends on whether the facts fall within the wording of the legislation and whether procedural requirements for suing a state-owned entity have been satisfied. (SAFLII)

Therefore, section 25 should not be treated as creating unlimited automatic liability for every accident involving electricity.

6. Msomi v Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd (2019)

In Msomi v Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd [2019] ZAKZPHC 82, the court considered a personal-injury claim involving electricity and section 25 of the ERA. The plaintiff relied both on the statutory presumption and on ordinary delictual principles concerning Eskom's failure to remove a dangerous condition. (SAFLII)

The case demonstrates that claimants can frame electricity-infrastructure claims through both statutory liability and ordinary delict, although the facts and applicable statutory requirements remain important.

7. Third-Party Interference and Vandalism

The operator is not automatically liable for every electrical accident.

In E.M and Another v Eskom Holdings Ltd [2025] ZAGPPHC 285, a child was fatally electrocuted by a vandalised live power line. The High Court found that section 25 did not automatically apply where the dangerous condition resulted from third-party vandalism and the evidence did not establish that Eskom knew or should have known about the danger before the incident. The claim therefore failed. (SAFLII)

This illustrates the importance of causation, foreseeability and control. An operator may have strong statutory responsibilities, but the law still examines whether the operator's conduct actually caused the harm.

8. Electricity Supply and Public-Law Responsibilities

Civil liability must also be distinguished from the broader public-law duties of electricity operators.

In Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd v Vaal River Development Association (2023 (4) SA 325 (CC)), the Constitutional Court considered Eskom's relationship with municipalities and electricity users. The Court emphasised that Eskom's legal duties cannot simply be assumed from its position as a major electricity supplier; the relevant constitutional, statutory and regulatory framework must identify the particular duty owed. (SAFLII)

Thus, failure to supply electricity and physical damage caused by electricity infrastructure are legally distinct issues.

9. Conclusion

Civil liability of electricity network operators combines delict, statutory regulation, administrative law and energy law. South Africa's section 25 of the Electricity Regulation Act provides significant protection to persons injured or suffering damage through qualifying electricity-related incidents by creating a presumption of negligence against the licensee.

At the same time, cases such as Eskom v Hendricks, Msomi v Eskom, Eskom v Botha, E.M v Eskom and Eskom v Vaal River show that liability is not automatic. The court must consider the statutory requirements, control over the infrastructure, evidence of negligence, causation, third-party interference and the precise legal duty owed.

The framework therefore seeks to balance public safety and victim compensation with fairness to electricity network operators that operate complex and potentially dangerous infrastructure.