Extract
[...] The question is whether Jessica can obtain compensation for her damages from the SNCF. The Badinter Law of July regulates the compensation for damages caused by traffic accidents, and can be combined with the liability of the person in charge. (Cass. civ. 2and March 2018, no. 17-13.554). To implement it cumulative conditions must be met, namely: it must be a motorized land vehicle, having caused a traffic accident, of which the said vehicle is responsible, and the accident is attributable to its driver. [...]
[...] 2and November 1972) and it is not even required an intention to harm (Cass. civ. 2and April 1997, n°95-14.687). In this case, the hotel was negligent in not controlling the functionality and security of the room rented by Arthur. The damages resulting from this negligence are the injuries caused to Arthur as a result of his fall. The causal link between the hotel's non-intentional fault and the damages caused to Arthur does not pose any difficulty in that Arthur was injured as a result of his fall while trying to access his hotel room through the balcony of the adjacent room due to the malfunction related to the window door of his room. [...]
[...] 2and March 1986; Cass. civ. 2and March 1997, n°95-19.314). In this case, the train was running on its own tracks, and Jessica fell onto the rails, either on her track. From then on, it can only be considered that Jessica's accident resulted from a fault of the SNCF, or that they are responsible, in so far as it is her own doing that she found herself on the train's own track. Thus, Jessica will not be able to obtain compensation from the SNCF. [...]
[...] In this case, the hotel was required to provide functional access and security to the rented room, while Arthur was required to pay the rental price. Therefore, due to the technical failure of the equipment provided, the hotel failed in its duty of prudence by showing negligence. Anyone who caused damage due to their act, negligence or fault, must repair it (article 1241 of the Civil Code). To do this, it belongs to the victim to establish a fault, a damage and a causal link (Cass. cvi. 2and June 2018, n°17-14.781). La fault does not necessarily have to be intentional (Cass. civ. [...]
[...] In this case, the vehicle in question is a train. The train having an engine and touching the ground, it can be considered as a motorized land vehicle. A vehicle is involved in a traffic accident as soon as it has intervened in any way in this accident (Cass. civ. 2e February 1990, no. 88-20.133). In this case, the train collided with Jessica, so it is involved in the accident. Furthermore, the accident is attributable to him because the resulting damage, that is to say Jessica's injuries, are a consequence of the accident. [...]
