Inexcusable Fault in Road Accidents: Court of Cassation Ruling - published: 25/09/2025

Extract

[...] In fact, the commented judgment does not stop at the question of the absence of discernment, leaving it to be assumed that the state of intoxication of the victim is not a barrier to qualifying her fault as inexcusable. [...]

[...] And in addition to these criteria related to the fault, it would be interesting to appreciate the state of mind of the victim that led to this fault (Part B). A. The voluntary fault of exceptional gravity The notion of inexcusable fault was clarified by the Court of Cassation in a series of ten judgments rendered on July The Court holds that 'is inexcusable ( . ) the voluntary fault of exceptional gravity exposing its author to a danger without a valid reason, of which he should have been aware'. This clarification thus excludes ordinary imprudence without a subjective element. [...]

[...] The victim's daughters sued the drivers of the vehicles that hit Elisa X as well as their insurers for compensation for their prejudice suffered by ricochet. The Court of Appeal of Nouméa, by a judgment of 30 May 2011, dismissed the plaintiffs' claim for compensation on the ground that the victim had committed an inexcusable fault that was the exclusive cause of the accident. The victim's daughters appeal to the cassation court on the grounds that the fact that the victim acted as she did does not characterize a fault of exceptional gravity, and that it is not a fault that is inexcusable because she did not intend to commit suicide by acting in this way. [...]

[...] The Court of Cassation, in rejecting the appeal, takes the position in favor of the second analysis, according to which a fault can be considered inexcusable even if the victim did not voluntarily seek the damage she suffered. In fact, inexcusable fault is distinguished from intentional fault. Inexcusable fault assumes a voluntary character, but this character is assessed in relation to the act and not to the harmful consequences of the act. This, unlike intentional fault, which assumes 'both the will to commit the act and the will to realize the damage.'1. [...]

[...] The gravity of the fault was retained by the Court of Cassation to characterize the inexcusable fault and exclude the applicants from the appeal from indemnifying their prejudice. B. The victim's awareness of the danger to which she exposes herself As we have already mentioned, the inexcusable fault supposes the existence of an intentional element, not necessarily in terms of the realization of the damage, but at least in terms of the fault. The Court of Cassation's definition of inexcusable fault that we presented clarifies that it exposes its author to a danger without a valid reason, of which he should have been aware. [...]