Erasmus Dube v Zimbabwe Electricity Transmission Distribution Company

On the night of 13 December 2015, a lightning bolt struck a wooden electricity pole in Hozheri village, Gweru, during a heavy storm. The lightning destroyed the insulator pin and insulation porcelain on the cross-arm, causing one of three electrical conductors to dislodge and hang approximately two metres above the ground. The following morning, 14 December 2015, the plaintiff, a 19-year-old herding cattle, came into contact with the live 11,000 volt conductor and was electrocuted. He suffered extensive burns and his left hand was amputated. He was hospitalized at Mpilo Central Hospital for three months. The plaintiff claimed the conductor was only 50cm above ground and covered by grass, while the defendant's evidence (supported by photographs and technical expert testimony) showed it was hanging two metres above ground with no grass coverage. The defendant's witnesses testified that the Auto-Recloser Circuit Breaker protection system operated correctly when the plaintiff made contact with the conductor.

• Whether the defendant was negligent in failing to fix an electrical fault in its distribution system
• Whether the defendant was negligent in failing to disconnect electricity transmission after the fault occurred
• Whether the defendant was negligent in delaying action until after the plaintiff was injured
• Whether the defendant owed a duty of care to prevent the plaintiff's injuries
• Whether the lightning strike constituted an act of God that broke the chain of causation
• Whether the plaintiff deliberately handled the live conductor, thereby causing his own injuries
• Whether the plaintiff proved factual causation on a balance of probabilities
• What is the appropriate quantum of damages for electrocution injuries resulting in amputation

1. The plaintiff's claims are dismissed. 2. The plaintiff shall pay the defendant's costs of suit.

Where a defect or dangerous condition in electrical conductors causes injury, negligence does not per se give rise to liability against a power company. Liability turns on whether the company knew, or by exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, of the defect in time to avoid injury. To establish delictual liability for negligence, a plaintiff must prove: (1) that a reasonable person in the defendant's position would foresee the possibility of injury and would take reasonable steps to guard against it; and (2) that the defendant failed to take such steps. The "but for" test applies to factual causation - the plaintiff must prove on a balance of probabilities that but for the defendant's wrongful conduct, the injury would not have occurred. Natural events or acts of God for which there is no prior notice and which could not reasonably be prevented do not give rise to delictual liability. A plaintiff who departs from pleaded particulars of negligence during trial without seeking and obtaining a formal amendment fails to discharge the onus of proving the cause of action.

The court observed that while it was unnecessary to determine quantum given the dismissal on liability, in keeping with court practice it addressed quantum in case of appeal. The court noted the plaintiff's claimed damages of $60,000 for pain and suffering and $160,000 for permanent disfigurement were far above the range typically awarded by the court in electrocution cases involving amputation. The court referenced Chinembiri & Ors v Ncube HH-55-2014 where damages ranged from $4,000-$6,000 for pain and suffering and $2,000-$10,000 for permanent disfigurement. The court observed the plaintiff's claims were exaggerated and figures appeared to be "plucked from the air." The court noted the plaintiff provided no expert evidence to support the claim for $30,000 in future medical expenses (which was later abandoned), stating there was no basis to award such damages without credible evidence of the nature of future treatment required.

This judgment clarifies the principles governing liability of electricity distribution companies for injuries caused by contact with electrical conductors. It establishes that negligence does not per se give rise to liability - the power company must have known or should reasonably have known of the defect in time to avoid injury. The case reinforces the application of the Kruger v Coetzee negligence test in the context of utility companies. It confirms that acts of God (such as lightning strikes) can break the chain of causation and that liability requires proof of a specific wrongful act by the defendant. The judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to pleadings and not departing from the pleaded cause of action without formal amendment. It also demonstrates the application of the principle that testimony contradicting established physical or mechanical facts cannot be accepted. The case provides guidance on the quantum of damages for electrocution injuries involving amputation, indicating the appropriate range based on precedent.