Unlock the nuances of traffic accident compensation under the Badinter law. Discover how the Court of Cassation's ruling on March 28, 2013, sheds light on the inexcusable fault of victims and its implications for driver responsibility and insurance claims. Learn about the rare admission of inexcusable fault in jurisprudence and the critical factors that led to this decision, including the victim's state of intoxication and reckless behavior on a poorly lit road. Understand the significance of this judgment in the context of road accident law and its potential impact on future cases. Dive into the details of this landmark ruling and gain valuable insights into the complexities of traffic accident compensation.
Extract
[...] The second civil chamber of the Court of Cassation made a ruling on March It answered the question in the affirmative and rejected the appeal to align itself with the Court of Appeal of Nouméa. After recalling the facts based on the gendarmerie investigation, the supreme judges note that the injuries establish with certainty that the victim was struck while she was lying on the ground. They add that "The act of lying down, at night, in a state of intoxication, in the middle of a frequently used and unlit public road, constitutes undoubtedly a voluntary fault of exceptional gravity. [...]
[...] It judged that the victim had committed an inexcusable fault that was the exclusive cause of the public road accident in which she was a victim. Consequently, it dismissed the victim's daughters from their claims. More specifically, it based its decision on the investigation and on the statements of the victim's relatives to retain an intention to commit suicide by the victim. A cassation appeal has therefore been lodged by the victim's daughters. The grounds are divided into four branches: they criticize the Court of Cassation for qualifying the fact as "voluntary fault of exceptional gravity exposing its author to a danger of which he should have been aware" and for retaining an intention to commit suicide on the part of the victim. [...]
[...] In this case, the judges had to rule on the presence of (in)excusable fault of the victim who lay down on the road in the middle of the night. The law does not, however, define the concept of inexcusable fault. Its definition is derived from a series of judgments rendered by the Court of Cassation on July 20, 1987: "is inexcusable the voluntary fault of exceptional gravity exposing its author without a valid reason to a danger of which he should have been aware. [...]
[...] They add that "the inexcusable fault of Elisa X.?is therefore the exclusive cause of the accident of which she was the victim, formula derived from the aforementioned article 3. The inexcusable fault, exclusive cause of the accident, prevents any compensation for the damages of the victims (by ricochet in this case). The appeal of the victim's daughters is therefore rejected. The judges have made an exact application of the paragraph 1 of article 3 of the Badinter law and the definition of the inexcusable fault. [...]
[...] Especially: the inexcusable fault of the victim In its ruling of 28 March 2013 and published in the Bulletin, the second civil chamber of the Court of Cassation had the opportunity to provide clarification on the compensation regime for traffic accidents resulting from the Badinter law and more specifically on the inexcusable fault of the victim. In this case, on 9 September 2005, the non-driving victim was hit successively by two vehicles while she was lying down, at night, in a state of intoxication in the middle of a frequently used road without public lighting. [...]
