Extract
[...] It can be voluntary (delictual) or involuntary (quasi-delictual). The Civil Code considers intentional fault and provides in Article 1240 that 'any intentional act of man, which causes damage to another, obliges the person by whose fault it occurred, to repair it.' Fault is defined by doctrine as the violation of a 'pre-existing obligation' (Planiol), of a duty, of a conduct standard arising from a text (law, code treaty), of a usage (code of ethics, rule of the game) or of morality (good faith, prudence). [...]
[...] An unintentional accident can be taken into account and no fault can be characterized. Therefore, In light of previous jurisprudence, it is highly probable that the behavior of Monsieur Jacques' opponent cannot suffice to characterize a fault capable of engaging his civil liability. II- The activation of the chainsaw Pascal, the five-year-old son of Monsieur Jacques, accidentally activated the chainsaw of his father, which was left on the common hedge between the two properties, resulting in the destruction of the rose garden of Monsieur Voldemort and the left leg of the latter being severed. [...]
[...] Secondly, it is obvious that it is because Pascal accidentally triggered his father's chainsaw that Mr. Voldemort's rose garden was destroyed and Mrs. Voldemort's left leg was severed. The damage was caused by the thing that Pascal had in his care. Thirdly, Pascal is five years old and is therefore a minor. However, although lacking discernment, Pascal can see his responsibility engaged on the field of fault. Indeed, the third condition related to fault is undeniable, and Pascal is at fault. [...]
[...] Jacques and the gesture of his opponent is therefore undeniable. Regarding the fact generator In law, and in sports, judges consider that a respectful behavior of the game rules implies that the responsibility of the athlete's personal act should be excluded: in the absence of a fault characterized by the violation of the game rules, there can be no fault. Even a simple clumsiness that is part of the risks incurred during the practice of a sport, justifies the rejection of an engagement of the responsibility of the author of the damage to the extent that no infringement of the game rules has been found (Cass. [...]
[...] In its judgment of July it considers that 'in order not to thwart the expectations of the debtor, who contracted in consideration of the general economy of the contract and not to confer on the third party invoking the contract a more advantageous position than that which the creditor himself can rely on, the third party to a contract who invokes, on the basis of tortious liability, a contractual breach which caused him damage may be opposed to the conditions and limits of liability that apply in the relations between the contracting parties.' The third party could escape the opposability of the limiting clauses of liability by showing that the contractual breach constitutes, at the same time, a tortious fault. In this case, Mr. Jacques committed a contractual breach. The heated discussion with the boss is a testament to this. This contractual breach causes damage to Jean-Jacques, a third party, in that it is due to the contractual breach that Mr. Jacques refuses to help him. Jean-Jacques' damage is undisputed: the heart attack is a testament to this. Therefore, Jean-Jacques can hold Monsieur Jacques liable on the grounds of personal act. [...]
