Extract
[...] This was thus the instrument of the damage caused to Louis. In addition, Samuel could have mastered it and prevented the harm that the spade could cause. He is therefore clearly the quality of guardian, regardless of his minority. The responsibility of Samuel should therefore be able to be engaged due to the custody of the thing. Liability for personal act The liability of Samuel can also be based on Article 1240 of the Civil Code, in so far as the fault is understood objectively. [...]
[...] In law, Article 1240 of the Civil Code, dealing with personal liability, states that 'any act whatsoever, which causes damage to another, obliges the person at fault to repair it'. The lack of discernment of the minor child does not prevent the imputation of a fault (Ass. plén May 1984, Lemaire and Derghini). In this case, The imprudence having as a consequence of drowning someone is a fault and Gabriel's minority cannot prevent the engagement of his responsibility for fault. A responsibility of Gabriel on the basis of liability for fault can thus be engaged. [...]
[...] Roger's personal act In law, the fault is defined by the 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 an usage (code of deontology, rule of the game) or of morality (good faith, prudence). Article 1240 of the Civil Code provides that 'any act (intentional) whatsoever of man, which causes damage to another, obliges the one by whose fault it occurred, to repair it'. In this case, removing a dog's muzzle is a fault since it is predictable that the dog can benefit from its freedom. The liability of Mr. Roger can therefore also be based on Article 1240 of the Civil Code. [...]
[...] Therefore, the responsibility of Gabriel and Louis's parents can be engaged. Regarding the responsibility of the grandparents In law, the fault is defined as the violation of a general duty of prudence and diligence based on article 1240. For example, this is the case of a failure to supervise a child. In this case, the grandparents failed somewhat in their duty of supervision, leaving the children to play alone, one in the water and the other with a shovel; however, it is a dangerous object (the shovel) and a dangerous place (the sea). [...]
[...] Regarding the responsibility of the German Shepherd In law, The Civil Code provides in Article 1243 that the owner of an animal, or the person using it, while it is in their possession, is responsible for the damage caused by the animal, whether the animal was under their care, lost, or escaped. There are several conditions. First, the owner of the animal or the person using it is civilly responsible. Next, the person responsible must have the power of 'use, control and direction' over the animal, as is the case with the fact of things. They must be the guardian of the animal. Finally, an active role of the animal in the origin of the damage is expected. In other words, the animal must have been the instrument of the damage. [...]
