Recourse between Co-Liable Parties in Traffic Accidents

Extract

[...] It has consecrated a kind of option based on common law for all actors in the accident, whether they are bound by the law of 1985 or common law. This conception, which is used in our judgment, allows for the facilitation of the implementation of the compensation process related to traffic accidents. The recourse between co-liable parties in the context of traffic accidents is difficult to define, even if the jurisprudence has taken care to specify its implementation. However, this decision raises other principles. [...]

[...] But also, on a traffic accident regime favorable to victims). I. The vague notion of recourse between co-accused in a traffic accident A lack of definition of recourse between co-involved parties compensated by case law The issue of recourse is not considered at all by the 1985 law. It was therefore necessary for the case law to determine this. This is, moreover, what F. Chabas was defending in The interpretation of articles 2 to 6 of the law of 5 July 1985 and the issue of recourse of 1995. [...]

[...] Court of Cassation, Civil Chamber 1 June 2011, no. 10-20036 - Can a driver who has not committed any fault be totally exempt from his responsibility even if no fault is attributable to his co-author? Cass., Civ. 2e 1 June 2011, n° 10-20036, published in the Bulletin By this cassation judgment of 1 June 2021, the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation delivers a decision on the recourse between co-authors for compensation of a road accident. In this case, a motorcyclist victim who was driving collided with the vehicle of a driver. [...]

[...] Nevertheless, this remains debatable because it puts an indemnification charge on a non-faulty person, which goes against what is provided for in Article 1382 of the Civil Code. A solution in line with the victims' desire for compensation, even drivers There are still other possibilities for the distribution of compensation between co-implicated parties in a traffic accident. In fact, the Badinter law has established a mandatory procedure for amicable settlement, imposed on the insurer of the responsible party in an accident. The main objective of the legislator was to accelerate the compensation of victims of traffic accidents, by ensuring a rapid and efficient process for their compensation. [...]

[...] It is then that the Court poses a contribution of the solidary debt when there is no fault committed by the co-liable parties of the traffic accident. This application of common law can be explained by the fact that the legislator limited himself to tracing the main lines of this special regime, such as the causes of exoneration. Furthermore, this regime already has similarities with common law, notably, the notion of custody relates to the terms of Article 1242, paragraph 1 of the Civil Code. [...]