Responsibility

[Eskom]

Thanks Dave but im happy with the name although many are not happy with the company and their service. At the moment that company needs to change a lot of things starting with management. But in my first post i had a question and not a question about Eskom although my nick is that companies name.

[Dave A]

So perhaps Dave you should not always stick up for the noobie ......

Rest assured I don't. Some noobs get mugged around here without ever even seeing the light of day
But then they're clearly begging for it...

Good to hear you're cool with things, Eskom

[SilverNodashi]

Thanks Dave but im happy with the name although many are not happy with the company and their service. At the moment that company needs to change a lot of things starting with management. But in my first post i had a question and not a question about Eskom although my nick is that companies name.

Perhaps you should consider that your question about electricity, and your nickname of "eskom" makes it rather difficult to get a serious answer..... The mere fact that you chose eskom suggests you know how electricity works (let's forget for a moment that most eskom technician's don't know either). By choosing a company related nickname, you automatically represent something related to said company.

Back to your question, as Dave said, it's a tough one to answer though I think it would be the home owner's decision, since he's not bound by any single COC - i.e. any person can change a plug once the COC has been signed off. The COC should have all the relevant changes made at that time. Any new changes should require a new COC, or an amendment. So if the home owner made changes, or paid someone else to make the changes, and it's not noted in the COC, it's his responsibility.

Proving who did what though could be a whole different story...

[HR Solutions]

Some noobs get mugged around here without ever even seeing the light of day
But then they're clearly begging for it...

Exactly - they are begging for it ! They definitely should not just go barging in with an attitude and attacking fellow members after only a few posts !

[sterne.law@gmail.com]

Liability requires, amongst others, proving causation.
That is, the damaging event is caused by the action of the defendant.

Factual causation is easy, the difficult one is legal.
So, I shoot Jack, who does not die, but whilst on his way to hospital the ambualnce is in a head on and Jack is killed.
Factually my shooting him caused his death because but for the shooting he would not have been in the ambulance.
However, the legal causation is the crash which has nothing to do with me.

It wpuld suggest that the plaintiff would need to prove that the damage causing event was caused by the installer etc.

[Dave A]

Liability requires, amongst others, proving causation.
That is, the damaging event is caused by the action of the defendant.

Or inaction, which can make things significantly messier in this situation...

I also find there's a disturbing trend in adjudication towards the complainant merely having to establish that they have suffered damage/a loss and point a finger of blame, and the onus then falls on the defendant to establish that they are not responsible for the loss. (e.g Consumer Protection Act).

[sterne.law@gmail.com]

Or inaction, which can make things significantly messier in this situation...

I also find there's a disturbing trend in adjudication towards the complainant merely having to establish that they have suffered damage/a loss and point a finger of blame, and the onus then falls on the defendant to establish that they are not responsible for the loss. (e.g Consumer Protection Act).

I was going to raise this.
The CPA imposes strict liability. If any goods cause harm then the plaintiff can pick a defendant.
Which raises a thorny conundrum.