Unlock the complexities of liability for damages caused by objects under your care. Discover how guardians can be held responsible and the conditions required to establish liability. Understand the role of the "thing" in causing damage and how to determine the causal link. Learn about exemptions, including the behavior of the victim, force majeure, and third-party actions. Essential reading for individuals and companies seeking to navigate the intricacies of liability law, particularly in cases involving objects or equipment under their control.
Extract
[...] In this case, the company is the guardian of the trampoline, the seat of the damage to Mr. Laguigne, which it had itself installed. However, it appears that Mr. Laguigne, in launching himself, slipped on the trampoline, which was in itself normal and presented no risk on this occasion in the context of normal use. The guardian company can then be exempt from its liability by demonstrating that the damage is not due to the thing but to the behavior of the victim. [...]
[...] For the liability of a guardian of a thing to be upheld, several conditions must be met. Firstly, the damage must have been caused by the thing. Only the active role of the thing, in participating in the damage, must be proven. Jurisprudence admits that this active role may be presumed. In fact, if the thing was in motion or had its own dynamism and came into contact with the victim or the damaged property, the active role (causal intervention) in the realization of the damage is presumed. [...]
[...] No foul characterized by the violation of the game rules can be taken into account. Therefore, the football player who kicked the ball can see her responsibility engaged on the basis of the sole responsibility of the ball fact. II- The ankle fracture A large package of snow fell from the roof of Mr. Dusse's chalet onto the sidewalk adjacent to the chalet. A passerby who was there at the time of the fall moved to the side and as a result sprained her ankle. The question is whether Mr. Dusse can be compensated. [...]
[...] Therefore, the company X may attempt to invoke a diversion of the thing by Mr. Laguigne of a nature to exempt it from its liability. [...]
[...] However, the snow on the roof is not under the care of the owner, who could not be considered as the guardian of the snow package. In the event that her care had been retained, the owner can be exempted from her responsibility due to the behavior of the victim who, having made a sideways movement, can see her behavior take on the characteristics of force majeure. Therefore, the liability of the snow package cannot be held against Mr. Dusse. [...]
