Liability for Things, guard of thing, Civil Code, Article 1384, Court of Cassation, joint liability, minors, custody of thing, damage, tortious civil liability
Reader
Abstract
Extract
of 4
Abstract
The Court of Cassation clarifies the notion of guard of thing and rejects joint liability of minors in a case involving damage caused by a thing in custody.
Extract
[...] Consequences: This is an illustration of the fact that the Court of Cassation only judges the law, it is not a third degree of jurisdiction and does not pronounce on the facts. This solution allows the builders of walls to ensure their normal positioning at the risk of being declared responsible for a fall causing damage. It therefore sensitizes the owner of the wall. The court adds that the thing must have an active role in the realization of the damage. [...]
[...] The second civil chamber of the Court of Cassation, under the auspices of the former article 1384 of the Civil Code, rendered a judgment of cassation on 19 October 2006. In fact, it rejects the position of responsibility in solidum of the 3 children advanced by the court of appeal. According to it, only the first, Gwenaël X is responsible insofar as at the time of the blaze he held the torch in his hand and thus exercised alone on this thing the powers of use, control and direction that characterize the guard. [...]
[...] Liability for Things - Scope of Decisions SCOPE OF DECISIONS - Session 6 - Liability for Things I. ? Cass. Chambres réunies February 1930, judgment Jand'heur II Solution: The present decision consecrates the principle of liability for things. The article 1384 paragraph 1 former of the Civil Code referred to by the Court of Cassation provides a presumption of liability with regard to the guardian of the thing. The Court of Cassation comes to complete the law by specifying that it is not necessary that the thing causing the damage has a vice inherent to its nature and is capable of causing damage insofar as the legislator has linked the responsibility to the custody of the thing and not to the thing as such. [...]
[...] Civ 2ème October 2006 The present judgment rendered by the second civil chamber on 19 October 2006 deals with the liability for the things one has in custody. In this case, by playing or by lighting, Gwenaël X and Julien and Guillaume Y made torches with hay. The first child dropped the torch, and caused a fire leading to the destruction of the hangar of the spouses Z. The court of first instance, by judgment of 12 December 2001, found the first minor solely responsible for the accident. [...]
[...] It adds that 'the fact of the third party could only exempt the guardian from his responsibility in its entirety if it had been unpredictable and irresistible to him.' Consequences: An exoneration of responsibility from the third party is only possible if the conditions of force majeure are met (unpredictability and irresistibility). One can reproach the court for not having put forward the third criterion, that of the external character to the debtor. The Court of Cassation is protective of all parties in this case. III. [...]
