Extract
[...] However, when the victim did not come into contact with the defendant's vehicle, it will be up to them to prove the vehicle's implication. In this case, there is indeed a traffic accident since a motorcycle fell on a traffic lane. A vehicle is involved in this accident: the victim's motorcycle. Finally, and in accordance with the jurisprudence cited above, the tractor must be considered as implicated in the accident, and as a consequence, its owner. The indemnification regime provided by the law of July can therefore be applied to this case and Jerome can be recognized as responsible for the accident. [...]
[...] This causal link has been accepted in jurisprudence when medical care following the fault of a third party has been damaging to the victim. Thus, the Court of Cassation considered that "The fault of the third party having necessitated an intervention, which led to a nosocomial infection, may engage their liability." (Civ. 1st, July 2010). As mentioned above, Camélia's (as custodian of the thing) fault led to Sandra's hospitalization. Following this hospitalization, Sandra contracted a Staphylococcus aureus. Therefore, Camélia may also see her liability engaged due to this infection. [...]
[...] In this case, Adam was using the controller and threw it. He therefore had a power of direction, use and control. Therefore, Adam was indeed the custodian of a thing that caused damage to his victim. He can therefore be considered responsible for the damage suffered by the client who can ask him for compensation. However, Ethan's liability cannot be engaged since he cannot be considered as the custodian of the thing. III) Liability of the fact of the entrusted Article 1242 of the Civil Code, paragraph provides that one may be held responsible for acts caused "by the act of persons for whom one is responsible" and paragraph 5 adds that employers may be held liable for damage caused by their employees in the functions for which they employed them. [...]
[...] Can Jerome be held responsible for the accident? Regarding traffic accidents, they are governed by an autonomous liability regime under the law of July Three conditions must be met in order to be compensated. First, the law of July applies only to traffic accidents, excluding intentional offenses (2nd Civ, January 22, 2004). Next, a vehicle must be involved. Finally, for compensation, the vehicle must be implicated, meaning it must have played some role in the accident. A vehicle can be implicated even if, had it not been there, the damage would still have occurred. [...]
[...] In this regard, the Cour de cassation has defined the custodian as "the one who exercises over the thing the powers of use, direction and control" (Civ. 2nd, June no. 95-17.145) and established a presumption of custodian on the owner of the thing (Civ. 2nd, May 16, 1984)." In this case, Sandra suffered a bodily injury (wounds and vertebral injuries) due to the broken glass pane when she pulled it. This glass pane belonged to Camélia, who is presumed to be its custodian. [...]
