Civil Liability of Network Operators

1. Introduction

Civil liability of network operators refers to the legal responsibility of an electricity transmission or distribution operator when its network causes death, personal injury, property damage, fire, or financial loss. Electricity networks include overhead lines, underground cables, transformers, substations, distribution units and other equipment.

Because electricity is potentially dangerous, network operators have important duties concerning the safe installation, inspection, maintenance, operation and repair of their infrastructure. In South Africa, these duties are supported by ordinary delictual law and by a special statutory rule in section 25 of the Electricity Regulation Act 4 of 2006 (ERA).

Section 25 provides that, in qualifying civil proceedings against a licensee, damage or injury caused by electricity generated, transmitted or distributed by that licensee is deemed to have been caused by the licensee's negligence unless credible evidence proves otherwise. (SAFLII)

2. Ordinary Basis of Civil Liability

Ordinary civil liability generally arises through delict. A claimant normally has to establish:

a legally recognised duty or wrongfulness;

negligence or another form of fault;

actual damage;

causation between the operator's conduct and the damage; and

legally recoverable loss.

For example, an operator may potentially be liable if it knows that a power line is dangerously low, fails to repair it within a reasonable period, and a member of the public is injured as a result.

The special electricity legislation is important because proving negligence can otherwise be difficult for an individual who does not have access to the operator's technical records.

3. Section 25 of the Electricity Regulation Act

Section 25 creates a rebuttable statutory presumption of negligence. It does not mean that every accident involving electricity automatically makes the network operator liable.

The claimant must first establish that the case falls within the statutory provision—for example, that the relevant electricity was generated, transmitted or distributed by the defendant licensee. Once the provision applies, the operator must provide credible evidence showing that the damage was not caused by its negligence. (SAFLII)

Importantly, the claimant still has to establish the other necessary elements of the claim, including the connection between the operator's electricity and the injury or damage.

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

This is one of the leading South African authorities on statutory electricity liability. The case concerned the predecessor statutory provision and its effect on the burden of proof.

The court explained that the electricity licensee bears the onus of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that it was not negligent, or, if negligence existed, that there was no causal connection between that negligence and the claimant's injuries. This principle continues to inform interpretation of the present section 25 framework. (SAFLII)

The case is significant because it recognises the special evidentiary position of electricity operators.

5. A.F.A v Blue Crane Route Municipality

In A.F.A v Blue Crane Route Municipality [2017] ZAECGHC 86, the court examined section 25 in a claim involving electrical infrastructure.

The judgment confirmed that section 25 reverses the ordinary position concerning negligence to an extent. However, ordinary delictual requirements remain important. The claimant cannot simply establish that an injury occurred and automatically obtain damages. Wrongfulness, causation and damage must still be addressed. (SAFLII)

This makes the case particularly useful for understanding the limits of statutory presumptions.

6. Ownership and Control of the Network

A major issue in network-operator liability is who actually owns or controls the infrastructure.

In T.S.M obo S.B.M v Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd [2024] ZAFSHC 274, a child was injured after coming into contact with an electrical power line. Although Eskom was a licensee, the court stressed that this alone was insufficient. There had to be evidence that Eskom owned the relevant infrastructure or was responsible for providing electricity and maintaining the particular power line. (SAFLII)

Therefore, where several operators, municipalities or private distributors operate within the same geographical area, identifying the responsible network operator becomes essential.

7. Third-Party Damage and Vandalism

Network operators may also face claims involving vandalism, theft, illegal connections or third-party interference.

In E.M and Another v Eskom Holdings Limited [2025] ZAGPPHC 285, a child was fatally electrocuted by a vandalised power line. The High Court held that section 25 did not apply in the circumstances because the dangerous condition resulted from third-party vandalism rather than the electricity installation as originally installed by Eskom. The court also found insufficient evidence that Eskom knew or should reasonably have known about the dangerous condition before the incident. (SAFLII)

This demonstrates that statutory liability does not necessarily eliminate questions of foreseeability and causation.

8. Recent Authority: Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd v Botha

In Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd v Botha [2026] ZASCA 48, farmers claimed damages for fires allegedly caused by Eskom's electricity infrastructure. The Supreme Court of Appeal considered section 25 together with procedural requirements applicable to claims against an organ of state. (SAFLII)

The case demonstrates that network-operator liability involves both substantive liability rules and procedural requirements.

9. Conclusion

Civil liability of network operators is based on a combination of delictual principles, statutory duties, electricity regulation and public-law responsibilities. Section 25 of the Electricity Regulation Act provides an important rebuttable presumption of negligence, but it does not create unlimited or automatic liability.

Cases such as Eskom v Hendricks, A.F.A v Blue Crane Route Municipality, T.S.M v Eskom, E.M v Eskom and Eskom v Botha demonstrate the importance of identifying the responsible operator, proving the connection with the electricity infrastructure, examining negligence and causation, and considering third-party interference.

The framework ultimately seeks to balance public safety and effective compensation with fairness to network operators responsible for complex electricity infrastructure.