Contractual vs Extracontractual Liability in Transportation Contracts

Extract

[...] There are two types of civil liability: contractual liability and extracontractual liability. By the Cass, 1re civ March 1988, the first civil chamber of the Court of Cassation decided the question of the scope of application of these two regimes. In this case, the plaintiff, after getting off the train, had slipped on a patch of ice present on the platform of the station. The fall resulted in his legs being cut off under the wheels of the train. The victim sues the SNCF company for responsibility and compensation for her damage, invoking the breach of its contractual obligations of safety. [...]

[...] The jurisprudence has had to refine its reasoning (it was more favorable to the fraudster who could sue the train company on the basis of extracontractual liability) and now, the judges of the first instance must ensure that the bodily harm suffered by the victim equipped with a ticket has indeed occurred during the execution of the contract. Finally, a victim cannot sue the defendant on the basis of both liabilities in accordance with the principle of non-cumulation of options. [...]

[...] It made a difference between the transportation contract proper (which includes an obligation of result) and the situation prior to or following the contract (which includes an obligation of means) (Civ. 1st, July 1969). However, there is a concern for travelers present within the station. Are these travelers, holding a ticket, considered ordinary third parties who could act in the event of a station accident through tort liability, or are they already or still parties to the contract? In a 1970 judgment (Civ. [...]

[...] In fact, it abandons the distinction between obligation of means and obligation of result of the security obligation of transportation contracts. It affirms that the obligation of means security present in previous and subsequent situations (when the individual is in the station, on the platform) disappears. It decides instead to affirm that the prejudice suffered by Mr. Valverde is within the scope of the extracontractual liability of the fact of things under his care (in this case: the train which is under the care of SNCF) under article 1384 of the Civil Code (now article 1242, paragraph 1). [...]

[...] However, some authors denounce this expansion, notably Cadier who denounces 'the ideology of repair'. This ruling also seems to align with the doctrinal movement of B. Starck, who asserts that we should hierarchize the damages. According to him, the bodily harm is the most important and it must be repaired without fail, without the victim having to prove the fault. However, this reflection is based on the foundation of the guarantee of civil liability. This ruling therefore sets the limits of contractual liability as well as the obligation of safety of result. [...]