Badinter Law Conditions for Road Accident Victims

Extract

[...] that this fall to the ground is part of the process of the accident that occurred in a single moment of time'. Minor : In this case, it is indeed motorized land vehicles that are involved: the motorcycle contains an engine, just like the stationary vehicles, regardless of which it is irrelevant whether they are stationary in accordance with the aforementioned judgment of March 23, 1994. Then, there is the presence of a traffic accident: it is a fact of circulation. [...]

[...] There is a collision, a crash between the two vehicles so that there is the creation of an accident. Moreover, the vehicles touched each other, so the presumption of involvement is irrebuttable. Finally, the damage, in other words the death of the victim is indeed linked to the accident. Indeed, the victim died few minutes after the accident occurred, from cardiac failure'. There is a real link between the accident and the damage." Conclusion: Given that all the conditions are met and the law does not oppose the indemnification of the victim's family, indirect victims, the deceased victim's wife can rely on the 1985 law. [...]

[...] He is then pushed by the construction equipment. Problematic : Will the victim be compensated? Major : A ruling made by the 2nd civil chamber of the court of cassation decided on March that "the damage caused by a utility equipment element foreign to the vehicle's displacement function does not trigger the implementation of the 1985 Badinter law" Minor: In this case, it is by using a forklift that the transporter moves the obstructing vehicle. This forklift is a vehicle with a tool function, i.e. [...]

[...] Indeed, directly, it was the collision, the impact of the car that caused the damage. However, here, we can put forward the fault of the victim. Indeed, on the one hand, the victim was intoxicated. On the other hand, the victim was in the middle of the road, dressed in black and without any reflective markings. Thus, he is at fault. The fault of the victim would be of a nature to exclude the right to compensation under the aforementioned judgment of 8 October 2009. [...]

[...] Major : The Badinter Law requires the meeting of several conditions: the involvement of a motor vehicle, the presence of a traffic accident, the involvement of the vehicle in the accident and finally the imputation of the damage suffered to the accident. It results from the judgment rendered by the second civil chamber on October that 'the fault committed by Mrs. X . had the effect of excluding her right to compensation'. The plenary assembly judged on November that 'only the voluntary fault of exceptional gravity, exposing its author without a valid reason to a danger of which he should have been aware' is inexcusable in the sense of this text. [...]