Unlock the nuances of subordinate liability with expert insights from landmark Court of Cassation judgments. Discover how recent rulings reshape the relationships between principals and subordinates, clarifying the scope of civil liability for damages caused during employment. Understand the critical factors influencing liability, including mission limits, intentional offenses, and victim characteristics. Stay informed on the evolving legal landscape governing employer-employee responsibility and third-party damages. Dive into the details of pivotal cases, such as Cousin and Costedoat, to grasp the implications for personal liability and compensation claims.
Extract
[...] The Court of Cassation relies on the victim's profane nature in financial products as well as the canvasser's trust-building to consider that the victim "could not have realized that he was acting for purposes foreign to his function"." This ruling is extremely protective of the victim. Indeed, various elements that could have enlightened him are highlighted, but the judges did not go in this direction. They preferred here to rebalance the relations between professionals (and more precisely canvassers) and their clients. Would the Court of Cassation have been so benevolent if the victim had had knowledge of financial products? What is the place and weight here of the canvasser's maneuvers? [...]
[...] In this case, the accountant of a company was criminally convicted for forgery and related offenses related to it for having obtained fraudulent subsidies for the company. Following a decision made in first instance, an appeal was lodged. The Paris Court of Appeal ruled on 1 March 2000. It held the accountant liable and ordered him to compensate the civil parties for the damage suffered. Following this decision, the subordinate lodged an appeal with the Court of Cassation. He particularly criticized the Court of Appeal for not having investigated "whether these offenses resulted solely from the execution of the instructions ( . [...]
[...] ) Masters and employers are responsible for the damage caused by their servants and employees in the functions for which they have employed them". This solution has the consequence of placing a heavy responsibility on the shoulders of the employer who does not directly intervene in the realization of the damage. Although a characterized fault is necessary, the solution is severe and risks further complicating labor and employment relations in social law. 2nd Civil Chamber, 2nd, June 2011 While the appeals court imposes individual responsibility in the context of their financial investments, the Court of Cassation has come to overturn this position. [...]
[...] This solution is protective for the subordinate. In fact, his civil liability will not be engaged inasmuch as he acts within the framework of his mission, inasmuch as he does not exceed the limits. As for the injured third party, he will only be able to act against the principal in the case, as here, where the subordinate remains confined to his missions. The action against the subordinate on the basis of the former article 1382 will not be receivable. [...]
[...] SESSION N° 5 : Liability of the act of another Liability of the committers of the act of their subordinates Exercise 1 : Realise a stop sheet and a thorough analysis : 1st Ass. plen February 2000 (Costedoat judgment) The plenary assembly of the court of cassation rendered a decision on 25 February 2000 regarding the liability of the committers of the act of their subordinates. In this case, a company and a private individual, owners of rice fields, requested a specialized company to proceed, by helicopter, with a herbicide treatment. [...]
