Parental liability, duty of supervision, cohabitation, child responsibility, French law, Court of Cassation, parental responsibility, civil law
Reader
Abstract
Extract
of 5
Abstract
The text discusses the complexities of parental responsibility for a child's actions, highlighting the uncertain criteria for cohabitation and duty of supervision.
Extract
[...] The drafters of the Civil Code initially based parental liability on the child's minority and their cohabitation. This presumption of fault was based on the idea that cohabitation made parents more able to prevent children from causing harm. Thus, this raises a presumption of parental liability for breach of a duty of supervision or education when their child causes damage. However, determining cohabitation as a criterion for liability remains complex, especially since the conditions of minority and housing are only indicators to characterize the duty of supervision that falls to parents. [...]
[...] The doctrine even goes so far as to suggest that this could discourage parents in education or even in natality. The doctrine therefore demanded the suppression of these applications, notably, the notion of cohabitation, just like the pre-project of reform of the law of obligations and prescription. F. Chabas even said that the eviction of the condition of cohabitation was being put in place. In fact, illustrations can be found in the jurisprudence, as shown by the decision of the criminal chamber of the Court of Cassation of 8 February 2005, where cohabitation had not ceased even though the child had been living with his parents since the age of 1 year. [...]
[...] The responsibility seems to be open to question. Moreover, the ruling addresses the temporary cessation of this duty as well as circumstances that seem to hold the grandfather responsible. Indeed, the defendant was not aware of the child's possession of the lighter, it was within earshot and the property did not seem dangerous. It appears that the child's supervision was not effective. Despite this, the Court of Cassation held the parents responsible. In addition, the new article 1242 provides that parents can be exempt from the simple presumption of responsibility that weighs on them, provided they prove that they could not avoid the damage to their child. [...]
[...] The liability of parents by operation of law is engaged as soon as the child resides habitually with them. This decision allows us to question an illustration of the complex qualification of the child's surveillance duty But also, on the likelihood of a severe regime of responsibility of fathers and mothers due to their child (II). I. An illustration of the complex qualification of the child's duty of supervision Through this solution, the uncertain criterion of cohabitation regarding the duty of supervision of the child is highlighted Emphasis is also placed on the refusal of responsibility of the third party regarding their duty of supervision of the child A. [...]
[...] In this case, a minor child accidentally set fire to hay with a lighter he had found while staying on vacation at his grandfather's, the defendant in the appeal. This caused a fire in the neighboring farm as well as a nearby property. The owners of the damaged property and their insurer, the plaintiffs in the appeal, sued the child's parents, their insurer, the child, and the grandfather for damages. The owners and parents, plaintiffs in the appeal, argue that the court of appeal in Colmar erred in dismissing their claim by not holding the defendant liable. [...]
