The Court of Cassation's strict interpretation of 'accident' under the 1985 Badinter law excludes voluntary acts, limiting insurer obligations and victim compensation.
Extract
[...] On this subject, the Court of Cassation criticizes the Court of Appeal of Nouméa for having held that «the obligation of the insurer could result from another foundation than that of the price of the engagement of the responsibility of his insured under the law of 5 July 1985 », so that even though the victim had not supported this means Excluding the qualification of an accident from a voluntary act opens up an intermediate situation, where the insurer is not obliged to compensate the victim. The victim can turn to the guarantee fund, which only fully compensates serious injuries to the person. From the victim's point of view, the regime would have been certainly more favorable if the Court of Cassation had integrated into the scope of application of the Badinter law the harmful events resulting from a voluntary accident, even without the driver's intention to cause the damage. [...]
[...] This allows for certain compensation of the victim in the event of a traffic accident. However, a voluntary accident by the driver excludes the application of the Badinter law, which could have the consequence of depriving the victim of any compensation. Article L. 113-1 of the Insurance Code excludes the insurer's guarantee when the insured has committed an intentional fault. In these situations, the Victims Guarantee Fund for acts of terrorism and other offenses allows the victim to be compensated. [...]
[...] The Court of Cassation responds negatively and quashes the judgment of the Court of Appeal. Based on Article 1er from the law of 5 July 1985, the Court of Cassation states that 'Does not constitute an accident in the sense of this text, that which, voluntarily provoked by the driver or a third party, does not present, as a result, a fortuitous character. » The Court of Cassation quashed the appeal court's ruling, excluding the qualification of traffic accident, which must be fortuitous. [...]
[...] In the event of a voluntary act, the Court of Cassation therefore excludes the notion of accident. The jurisdiction applies a strict conception of the notion of accident, which thus limits the insurer's obligation to indemnify victims. II- The strict conception of the notion of accident limiting the insurer's obligation The Court of Cassation chooses a strict conception of the notion of accident, without taking into account the intentional or non-intentional nature of the damage caused which limits the insurer's obligation to indemnify The indifference of the non-intentional character to the qualification of the accident If it is proven that the intention to harm the physical integrity of the passenger allows for the exclusion of the notion of road accident, the question arose as to whether the intention to leave the road had the same consequence. [...]
[...] Court of Cassation, Civil Chamber February no. 21-22.319 - Can an accident be characterized, thus allowing passengers to be compensated, when the driver intentionally left the road? By a ruling of the second civil chamber of the Court of Cassation dated November the Court of Cassation states that «the law of July applies only to traffic accidents excluding voluntary infractions ». Thus, when a voluntary infringement is the cause of damage, there may be difficulties in characterizing an accident. In this sense, the cassation ruling of the second civil chamber of the Court of Cassation dated February is related to the requirement of the accidental nature of the accident in order to compensate the victim. [...]
