Liability for others

The liability for others is when a person is juridically responsible for another person and engages her criminal Responsabilité when that this one made a fault. This type of responsibility is governed with the article of the Civil code, and in particular in its first subparagraph which lays out that:

" One is responsible not only damage which one causes by his characteristic made, but still of that which is caused by the fact of the people which one must answer, or of the things that one has under his garde."

Thus, five assumptions are possible relating to this type of responsibility:

that of the parents because of their children
that of the Masters because of their servants
that of the teachers because of their pupils
that of the principals because of their employees
that of the craftsmen because of their apprentices

Parallel to these five assumptions described by the law, jurisprudence will develop a general system of responsibility for others under the people which one must answer, by taking the subparagraph first article as bases. This system is used in particular for the juvenile delinquents as well as the handicapped people.

The liability for others draws its logic from the insolvency of others. Indeed, through the current victimologist started with the development of the insurance, the priority goes towards the repair of the Dommage endured by the victim. Consequently the subjective responsibility in which the fault founds is finished. Today we are in a system of objective responsibility in which the proof of the fault became useless.

The general system of responsibility for others

This system is thus that developed by jurisprudence parallel to the regulated modes of responsibility with the article. This system was devoted on March 29th, 1991 by the Plenary assembly under the stop Blieck . In the species, a mentally handicapped person interned in specialized center had put fire. Theoretically this one was responsible, but in practice insolvent. This is why, the Court had operated a reversal of jurisprudence since she had considered the association which dealt with the handicapped person as responsible with the title that it is her which with the responsibility of control its lifestyle. This stop revealed that the article was not complete and that there were other case of figure.

One speaks about system of responsibility and not of principle of responsibility because it is about a system not led in permanent evolution thanks to jurisprudence.

The implementation of the general liability for others

; Conditions of this responsibility:

guard of others

One defines it as the capacity to organize and control the lifestyle or the activity of others. A stop gone back to 2000 precise that the system of responsibility is founded on this guard of others.

The question of the origin of this guard arises then, as for knowing if this capacity is given by a legal Document or if it is about a simple capacity in fact. The stops seem to privilege the legal approach of the guard (i.e. by legal decision or contract).

Also the question of the temporality of the guard arises, as for knowing if it must be permanent or temporary. Two stop of the Court of appeal gone back to 1995 and 2000 retain the criterion of nonpermanent guard: the guard must be carried out during a sufficient time to sit the report/ratio of guard . Two situation are possible:

the guard is permanent: the guard will be then responsible even if he materially did not exert his power of guard at the time of the detrimental fact.
the guard is intermittent or temporary but is carried out under sufficient conditions to sit the report/ratio of guard: the responsibility for the guard is committed if the author of the damage were under his effective capacity at the time when the damage was caused.

the fact of others

According to a stop gone back to 2003, the fact of others must obligatorily cover a faulty character, it cannot act only of one simple fact causable. On the base of article Al 1, it should be proven that the Dommage was caused by a fact of kept likely to engage its personal liabilities.

; Causes of exemption Two cases of figure are possible:

if the system of responsibility is founded on the fault: the guard can exonerate his responsibility by proving that it did not make itself of fault.
if the system of responsibility is full: according to the stop Notre Dame of the Floods , “the people held to answer because of others within the meaning of the article, subparagraph 1st, of the civil code cannot exonerate responsibility automatically resulting from this text by showing that they did not make any fault”. What wants to say that the exemption will be able to take place only by proving the major force or that the damage comes out from an initial fault of the victim.

The wide one of the general liability for others

; Moral person, Natural person The guard of others can be a moral person, it is on the other hand more problematic concerning the natural persons.

A stop of the Court of appeal gone back to 2000 admits that a tutor can be responsible for the damage caused by the minor who is entrusted to him, since it has much to be able on his pupil and this on the base article Al 1. Another stop of the Court of appeal gone back to 2006 does not recognize the responsible curator because of others.

Concerning the grandparent, a stop gone back to 2004 declares them not person in charge because of their small-children. ; Office plurality of the responsibilities The office plurality of the responsibilities once again draws its logic from the current victimologist. Several persons in charge would be equivalent to a larger plate and thus a better solvency of the faulty one. It is thus possible to cumulate the responsibilities:

of the parents and the teacher for the minor
of the parents and a craftsman for the minor
of the State and of an association for the major incompetent

A stop of the Court of appeal gone back to 1981 excluded the possibility of the office plurality relative/principal. In addition, doctrinal interpretation of a stop of 2002 noted an impossibility of office plurality parents/association for the minor.

The parental responsibility

; Art Al 4. :

" The father and the mother, as they exert the parental authority, are jointly responsible for the damage caused by their minors living with eux."

This article concerns precisely only the father and mother of the child. One referred in another article concerning the tutors where other persons in charge.

The conditions of the parental responsibility are:

the minority of the child
the bond of filiation and parental authority
cohabitation of the child with his parents
the detrimental fact of the child

The responsibility for the principal because of their employee

Art Al 5.

" Masters and principals, (are jointly responsible) damage caused by their servants and employees in the functions to which they have them employés"

The conditions of the responsibility for the principals because of their employees are:

a bond of preposition
a detrimental fact
the fastening of the detrimental fact to the report/ratio of preposition

See too

Random links: