Extract
[...] In this case, the focus should be on the act of the third party, in other words, on the fact that the victim was suddenly restrained and dragged onto the tracks by a third party. This act, according to the judges, has the character of being unpredictable and irresistible for SNCF. Indeed, the latter could not have foreseen such an event. It was not able to resist it or even avoid the consequences. Moreover, it was completely foreign to it. It is then a case of force majeure. [...]
[...] This kind of reversal in extracontractual matters carried out by the commented judgment and that rendered on the same day provides clarifications on the characteristics of irresistibility and unpredictability of the fact of the third party. Finally, force majeure will be excluded only in case of precise, objective, demonstrated and causal negligence with the damage. [...]
[...] Indeed, in order to justify its decision, it took into account: the mental health of the aggressor, the absence of altercation and knowledge between the two men, the duration between the aggression and the collision with the train and the conclusions of the penal investigation. The cassation court added in order to exonerate the SNCF that no surveillance measure or installation would have prevented the aggression, except for the installation of platform facades, which is impossible and too costly. However, one can reproach the court for easily overlooking the fact thatcontractual obligation of safety and result of which the SNCF is debtor. This case-by-case assessment, detailed, illustrated places the cassation court in a demonstrative, pedagogical line. [...]
[...] L'unification of the regimes of contractual and extracontractual liability For a long time, the supreme judges evaluated the exoneration causes related to force majeure differently, and notably according to the author of the fault: the victim or the fact of a third party. Although the cumulation of the unpredictable and irresistible character is required in all cases, unpredictability must be evaluated in the light of the damaging fact and this, both in extracontractual matters and in contractual matters, that is to say at the time of the conclusion of a contract. This unification simplifies the law, which tends, in its entirety, to become more complex and lose the litigant. [...]
[...] It judged that the SNCF, guardian of the train that came into contact with the victim, was exempt from all responsibility. It also placed the burden of proof of the technical feasibility of installing protective facades on the guarantee fund for victims of terrorism and other offenses. A cassation appeal was then lodged by the guarantee fund for victims of acts of terrorism and other offenses. Its cassation appeal includes two grounds: in the first, the fund highlights the fact that the SNCF cannot exempt itself from its responsibility unless it provides proof of the character of both unpredictable and irresistible of the collision. [...]
