This document discusses the principles of civil liability, focusing on the conditions required to establish liability, including the existence of damage, a causal link, and a generating fact.
Extract
[...] The certain, legitimate and personal character of Ernestine's damage does not leave any doubt. - The link of causality There is only liability if the fact imputed to the defendant is linked to the damage by a cause-and-effect relationship. It is classic to oppose two great conceptions of causality: the theory of equivalence of conditions and the theory of adequate causality. In this case, Regardless of the theory adopted, it is beyond doubt that Mr. Roger's fault in removing the muzzle from the dog leads to the injuries caused to Ernestine. [...]
[...] However, this is a dangerous object and place. Although Gabriel and Samuel are 7 and 10 years old, certainly a prudent and reasonable person should not entrust such an object and leave children playing in the water without supervision. The liability of the grandparents is therefore conceivable due to a fault of negligence committed in the supervision of the two children. From the point of view of causality, it is likely that if the grandparents had not left the children alone, the damage would not have occurred. [...]
[...] The certain, legitimate and personal character of Agathe's damage is not in doubt either. - The link of causality There is only liability if the fact imputed to the defendant is linked to the damage by a cause-and-effect relationship. In this case, Regardless of the theory adopted - equivalence of conditions or adequate causality, it is beyond doubt that Gabriel's behavior is detrimental to Agathe. - The fact generator The liability for personal acts results from Article 1240 of the Civil Code, which states: 'Any act whatsoever, which causes damage to another, obliges the person at fault to repair it.' Fault can be defined as the violation of a general duty of prudence or diligence and is understood objectively. [...]
[...] The requirement of a causal link may seem satisfied, even if the case law sometimes proves to be more rigorous in proving a direct causal link between the fault and the damage that occurred. [...]
[...] Samuel therefore clearly holds the quality of custodian. To conclude, let us specify that responsibility is objective, and the custodian can only be exempted by the existence of an act of force majeure (total exemption) or by the fact of a third party or the victim (partial or total exemption if this fact presents the characteristics of force majeure). In this case, it does not seem that any possible cause of exemption is envisageable. The responsibility of Samuel, in his capacity as custodian of the thing, should therefore be able to be engaged. [...]
