Causal Link in Compensation for Damages

Extract

[...] The refusal of the jurisprudence to be hospitalized in a rigid system > The jurisprudence did not retain any of the two theories The choice of one or the other is justified according to the purpose sought by the judge : - If the judge is at all costs to indemnify, he will retain the theory of equivalence of conditions - If the court of cassation wants to remove the liability of an agent, it will retain the theory of adequate causality (which makes a distinction between agents) > There are decisions that cite their own theories : - Judgment of the Civil Chamber of 27 March 2003 opportunistic application (first theory) - Judgment of the First Civil Chamber of 19 February 2003 application of the second theory = Second theory is more applied II- The character of causality The requirement of a certain link of causality > For causality to be established, the link of causality must be direct and certain The requirement of a certain link of causality does not pose any doubt in most cases but can be more complicated in the case of multiple authors > If the judge has a doubt about causality (it is not certain), the judge will reject responsibility. It must also be direct causality B. [...]

[...] The requirement of a direct link of causality The link of causality must be certain = direct > Discussion In the context of condition equivalence, it is admitted that the damage is not totally direct The requirement of direct damage is more marked in contractual matters than in extra-contractual matters The jurisprudence has been able to reject liability when there is a plurality of causes originating the damage EXAMPLE: Disputes relating to medical liability, disputes relating to road traffic accidents > In fact, the occurrence of a damage often results from a multiplicity of causes In this case, the judge can adopt two attitudes: - The judge decides that only one of the events is the origin of the damage (only one element retained as the cause of the damage) This means that only one responsible will be identified as the author of the damage - On the other hand, the Court of Cassation may consider that the different facts have contributed to the realization of the damage, and that they are all the legal cause of this damage Leading to the involvement of the liability of several people For example: judgment of June a street sweeper pricked his finger with a needle protruding from a trash bag and was diagnosed as HIV positive The jurisprudence admits the responsibility of the medical cabinet by finding that there were no other possible causes = PROOF BY EXCLUSION OF OTHER POSSIBLE CAUSES Most of the time, the direct character of the causal link results from the temporal proximity of the damage and the generating fact. The temporal element plays a primary role in establishing the direct character of the causal link > Principle established by jurisprudence: To be compensated, the damage must be the direct and immediate consequence of the harmful fact BUT This requirement of direct causal link is sometimes undermined . [...]

[...] Based only on testimonies, indices The presumptions of facts must be serious, precise and consistent This facilitates the role of the victim since the judge will be more easily convinced of the existence of the causal link = RELAXATION The reversal of the burden of proof of the causality > Two ways to proceed Judicial presumptions - Legal presumptions a. Judicial presumptions > The burden of proof will shift to the defendant The role of the victim in a civil liability lawsuit is greatly alleviated when the judge applies one or more presumptions It is no longer up to the victim to directly prove the causal link It will be presumed from known elements > A burden on the defendant to prove that they had no causal role? [...]

[...] Legal presumptions > They are established by the law itself It is not just the judge who creates the presumption, but the law that operates the reversal of the burden of proof Example The legislator has consecrated a legal presumption in favor of the victims of a nuclear accident with a law of October 30, 1968 Articles L597-12 and L597-36 of the Environment Code Provides a non-exhaustive list of infections related to nuclear > One can also cite article 102 of the 2002 law which concerns the transfusional contamination of hepatitis C Presumption of contamination by transfusion II- Incidence of the plurality of causes (solutions of the positive law) > There may be multiple causes at the origin of a damage The judge may retain a single cause of the damage = a single responsible person Or on the contrary, several causes = several responsible persons A. [...]

[...] Concurrent fact/generating fact/natural fact > The hypothesis presents itself when the case is not constitutive of an act of force majeure but a fact has contributed to the damage Example: a storm > This natural fact is not taken into account so that the responsible person must indemnify the entire damage > BUT The Lamoricière ruling of 19 June 1951 had previously retained another solution Shipwreck caused by a storm, and also poor quality coal and also poor quality of the ship In this ruling, the Court of Cassation had retained an original solution, it had broken down the causality by deciding that part of the shipwreck was due to a defect in the ship, another to the quality of the coal . = Partial causality, breaking down the causal link into many pieces . [...]