The Court of Cassation ruling on November 29, 2000, clarifies the application of the tenant's liability presumption under Article 1733 of the Civil Code, limiting it to landlord-tenant relationships and excluding third parties.
Extract
[...] The presumption of liability provided for in this article is therefore based on the idea that the tenant, having the enjoyment and control of the rented property, is able to avoid or limit the risks of disaster, notably by taking the necessary precautions. However, this presumption is not absolute: it can be reversed if the tenant provides proof that the fire is due to circumstances beyond his control (for example, a fire triggered by an unpredictable and unavoidable event, or caused by a defect in construction of which he was unaware). [...]
[...] Unlike contracting parties, third parties do not benefit from the presumption of liability attached to the contract; they must assume the burden of proof of a fault, which sometimes constitutes a major obstacle to obtaining compensation. This evidentiary requirement reduces by consent the legal protection of third parties, making their compensation sometimes uncertain and subject to a demonstration of fault on the part of third parties. In this, the judgment illustrates the clear distinction between liability regimes, while highlighting lesser protection for third parties who cannot avail themselves of the benefits of contractual clauses binding the parties involved. [...]
[...] (the former tenant), from 28 February 1991 at 21:30', and therefore liable for the obligations provided for in Article 1733 of the Civil Code previously cited. However, the Court of Cassation rejects this analysis, considering that these elements are not sufficient to characterize the existence of an effective rental relationship before March the official date of entry into force of the lease agreement. It therefore specifies that, 'by reasons that are not sufficient to characterize the existence of rental relationships before the date scheduled for the effective date of the lease', the Court of Appeal has violated the text of Article 1733 of the Civil Code. [...]
[...] The Court of Cassation responds by overturning the decision of the Court of Appeal. In fact, it considers that the reasons retained are not sufficient to establish the existence of rental relationships between the alleged tenants and the owners before the effective date of the lease, despite the fact that they may have entered the premises beforehand. It also recalls that the liability presumption presented in Article 1733 of the Civil Code can only be applied between the landlord and his tenant, thus excluding any third parties, such as in this case, the owners of the adjacent apartments, from this liability presumption. [...]
[...] In this case, a fire broke out in an apartment rented, damaging not only the rented premises, but also other parts and apartments of the building in co-ownership. The lease agreement signed between the owners and the tenants provided for an effective date from March at midnight, however, the tenants took possession of the premises the night before, having received a set of keys from the real estate agency to whom the management had been entrusted by the owners of the rented property. [...]
