Cash back from power cuts ‘highly unlikely’

Add as a preferred source on Google

ROLLING load shedding has resulted in consumers and business owners submitting claims to Eskom and municipalities for broken household appliances and office equipment.

Furious plaintiffs on consumer service websites such as Hello Peter have demanded money back after unexpected power cuts caused damages to fridges, televisions, computers and printers running into tens of thousands of rands.

But Richards Bay attorneys explain the chances of the national power utility or local boroughs accepting responsibility are improbable.

‘Litigants across South Africa are of the opinion that the burden of proof on the claimant would be huge, showing that Eskom was negligent would be highly unlikely,’ said Kloppers Incorporated Litigation Department Attorney, Alicia Vandayar.

‘In normal situations, the municipality will determine if they were negligent in any way.

‘Municipalities, as well as Eskom, widely advertise schedules of load shedding as well as protective measures that should be taken.

‘Therefore, chances of a claim based on negligence are pretty low.’

Rights when claiming

Vandayar says there are however four elements to ensure claims against Eskom are successful.

‘You must be able to prove delict – a breach of a statutory duty by Eskom to provide electricity.

‘It is also necessary to verify Eskom was at fault. The test for negligence is the ‘reasonable person test’ – to determine if a reasonable person in the same situation would have acted differently.

‘Causation means you have to show the direct link between the load shedding and the broken appliance.

‘And finally, damages – you have to show the monetary value of the damages incurred.

‘It is quite simple to prove the first, third and fourth element, but proving the second element in a court of law is more difficult.

‘If one can prove that Eskom could have prevented the current situation, then there is chance of success.’