It is common cause that the defendant [Eskom] allowed the presence of electricity in the lines spanning the foot path used by the plaintiff on the day of the incident. Upon learning of the incident the defendant rectified the situation by causing electricity to be switched off and the lines dismantled. I am fortified to use the same principle used in the case of Coppejans v Bosman (34676/2013) [2014] ZAGPHC 1833 to establish liability. In an action based on the actio de pauperie the defendant had denied liability on the basis that the dog which had bitten the plaintiff was a stray dog. Yet the defendant had not only salvaged the plaintiff from the mauling, he took her to hospital, paid the bill, visited her in hospital and eventually killed the dog. If the defendant was not guilty he would not have incurred such expenses for a matter that does not concern him. The same applies to the defendant in the present case. Its actions after the incident reinforce the notion that it had introduced the source of danger which led to the plaintiff’s injuries for which it would be held liable.
SAM Baqwa J in Halstead-Cleak v Eskom Holdings Limited [2015] JOL 33332 (GP) dated 1 June 2015 at para [23].