L F Bezuidenhout NO v Eskom

Louis Roux, a 19-year-old learner mine official, hitched a lift in April 1997 in a truck owned by Eskom and driven by Oelofse, an Eskom employee. Oelofse was expressly prohibited from giving lifts to members of the public. While driving the truck after attending to work-related duties, Oelofse negligently fell asleep, causing the vehicle to leave the road and crash. Roux, who had accepted the lift, was found unconscious near the wreckage and suffered severe head injuries. Roux’s father, later replaced by a curator ad litem, sued Eskom for damages, alleging that Oelofse’s negligence caused the injuries and that Eskom was vicariously liable.

The appeal was dismissed. Eskom was held not vicariously liable for the injuries suffered by Roux. The cross-appeal regarding foreseeability did not alter the outcome.

The case reaffirmed and endorsed the precedent in SAR&H v Marais, confirming that an employer is not vicariously liable for injuries to an unauthorised passenger carried in breach of express instructions. It clarified that giving lifts to members of the public may fall entirely outside the scope of employment, even where negligent driving is otherwise part of the employee’s duties, and emphasised the role of policy considerations in delimiting vicarious liability.