Extract
[...] To exclude the accident, it has sometimes required that the driver's act be intentional11. In this perspective, it appears that the deliberate collusion provoked by the driver in the intention to commit suicide characterizes a traffic accident even if damage was caused to third parties12. At other times, in a more restrictive manner, it has considered that the simply voluntary act, such as directing one's vehicle onto a third party and colliding with them due to an error in the assessment of distances, was sufficient to exclude the notion of accident in the sense of the law without the need to characterize the intention to cause damage13. [...]
[...] The High Court takes up in its view Article which provides that the law applies to victims of a traffic accident 'even when they are transported under a contract involving a motorized land vehicle as well as its trailers or semi-trailers, except for railways and tramways circulating on their own tracks.' In fact, it must be understood that the motorized land vehicle can be a car, a motorcycle, a moped, an agricultural machine or a construction machine. If the facts do not specify which category of vehicle it is, nothing indicates that there was any difficulty between the judges on this point. The first preliminary condition is therefore established. Next, it is necessary to establish that the vehicle was in 'circulation'. [...]
[...] Court of Cassation, Civil Chamber February 2024, No. 21-22.319 - Can we retain the qualification of road accident when the damage is the consequence of a voluntary act of the driver, but whose intentionality is unknown, involving the insurer to indemnify the victim? Civ February 2024 In its cassation decision of 15 February 2024, the 2e the civil chamber reverses the definition that the jurisprudence has established on the notion of 'accident' for which it excludes the search for intention. [...]
[...] Or, it is precisely on this point that the judgment is subject to cassation, while the Court of Cassation opts for a broad definition II. The rejection of the qualification of traffic accident in the case of intentional damaging fact To reject the qualification of traffic accident, the Court of Cassation chooses to exclude intention from the notion of voluntary action and the consequences are double from the point of view of the law and the insurer A. The absence of a criterion related to intention vis-à-vis a broad definition of voluntary action The Court of Cassation explicitly states in paragraph 5 'Does not constitute an accident in the sense of (the law), that which, voluntarily by the driver or a third party, does not present, from this fact, a fortuitous character'. [...]
[...] Thus, for Huber Groutel, the traffic accident caused intentionally remains a traffic accident from the point of view of the Badinter law. Only for the High Civil Jurisdiction, any intentional fault committed by means of a motorized land vehicle constantly excludes the characterization of traffic accident. Unlike here, the intentional fault does not include the intention to cause harm to the victim. Or, the jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation is itself ambiguous as it alternates before the need to characterize the intention of the person in question. [...]
