The Badinter Law of July 5, 1985, applies to traffic accidents involving motorized land vehicles, ensuring rapid and effective compensation for victims.
Extract
[...] Alexandre was walking on a departmental road, where the presence of pedestrians, although dangerous, is not as abnormal as crossing a highway. ? The victim's awareness of the risk. Mr. Alexandre's advanced state of intoxication may render uncertain his assessment of the danger. Two hypotheses can thus be considered. If the judges consider that Mr. Alexandre's behavior is of exceptional gravity and constitutes the exclusive cause of the accident, his right to compensation may be excluded. On the other hand, if his behavior is deemed imprudent but not inexcusable, then his compensation may be reduced but not excluded. [...]
[...] This principle applies regardless of the driver's liability, except for exceptions related to the victim's own fault. In this case, the driver's vehicle is directly involved in the accident since it collided with Mr. Alexandre. Thus, in the absence of the victim's fault, the driver is required to fully compensate Mr. Alexandre for the damages suffered. However, the central question here is that of the existence of the victim's fault and its impact on their right to compensation. 2. The victim's fault and its impact on compensation Article 3 of the Badinter Law establishes a distinction between several categories of victims. [...]
[...] However, jurisprudence has sometimes refused to qualify the behavior of a victim, even in a state of manifest imprudence. Thus, if Mr. Hubert's behavior is simply judged imprudent but not of exceptional gravity, he will retain a right to compensation, but it may be reduced. Two hypotheses can therefore be considered. If Mr. Hubert's fault is judged inexcusable and the exclusive cause of the accident, he will not be able to claim any compensation. If his behavior is only imprudence, his right to compensation will be reduced but not suppressed. [...]
[...] As a result, The accident of Mr. Hubert falls well within the scope of the law of July as it is a road traffic accident involving a motorized land vehicle. However, Mr. Hubert adopted an active behavior in the occurrence of his own damage by voluntarily intervening in Mr. Guy's maneuver. It will be necessary to evaluate whether his behavior constitutes an inexcusable fault excluding any compensation or a simple imprudence reducing his right to repair. In the most probable hypothesis, his compensation will be reduced but not excluded, unless the judges consider that his intervention was of exceptional gravity and the exclusive cause of the accident. [...]
[...] The jurisprudence then considers that these vehicles are involved in the accident, even in the absence of contact. In this regard, the judges indicate that vehicle is involved in a traffic accident whenever it has played any role in its realization.' (Civ. 2e March 2017, no 16-15.562). In this case, it is not specified whether the vehicles were parked regularly or irregularly. If the parking was irregular or if the presence of the vehicles led to an unpredictable reaction from Mr. [...]
