Liability for the things - SpeedyLook encyclopedia

The liability for the things is the situation in which an individual engages his clean criminal Responsabilité following a damage that it would have caused with others by the means of one of his personal things. This type of responsibility is governed with the articles (liability for the animals), (liability for the buildings) and 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 guard. ”

In addition to the Law, jurisprudence also handed down judgments defining of the rules relating to the liability for the things, and in particular with the stop Teffaine says the stop of the tug boat (Case. Civ., June 16th, 1896). In the species, the boiler of a trailer exploded, killing a workman. The responsibility for the owner of the boiler was called upon with the visa for article Al 1. The thing becomes source of responsibility if it is handled by the hand of the man and if it presents a dangerous character. It is especially with the stop Jand' hor (Case., CH. Joined together, February 13rd, 1930) that the Court of appeal could structure a coherent system of responsibility with two major rules:

Article Al 1 attaches the responsibility to the guard for the thing and not to the thing itself.
Article Al 1 poses against the guard a Présomption of responsibility. Consequently this one cannot be exonerated any more by proving that it did not make a personal fault and only the foreign cause can exonerate some.

The general scheme of the liability for the things

Conditions of setting concerned of the liability for the things

A thing is needed

Here, the Chose means in a very broad way: movable or real, dangerous or, not vitiated or not, material or not (ex: waves, vapor). The human body is not regarded as a thing, except if it constitutes a whole with the thing (ex: shock between two cyclists). There exist things without Master such as water, the air, etc These things cannot be the subject of a responsibility in theory.

The fact of the thing

The thing must have had a role causable, credit, in the supervening of the Dommage except if the use of this thing were knowingly diverted by the victim (Civ. 2nd, February 24th, 2005). It is said that the thing is the instrument of the damage . It revêt four different abnormal positions being able to explain the advent of the damage:

the thing is inert

An inert thing perhaps the instrument of a damage if the proof is not reported that it occupied an abnormal position or that it was in bad condition (Civ. 2nd, January 11th, 1995). It is here with the victim to prove the active role of the thing.

Jurisprudence has to detect several particular case sometimes disputed:

- the particular case of the panes.

Since it results from the observations of the courts dealing with the substance of a case that a glazed door, which had broken, was fragile, the thing, because of its anormality, was the instrument of the damage (Civ. 2nd, February 24th, 2005. ex: Civ. 2 {{E}}, June 15th, 2000). However, when the window was sufficiently announced to appear with an attentive person, it is considered that it was not the instrument of the damage (Civ. 2nd, May 28th, 1986). Moreover, when the wall of glass contributed to the realization of the damage of the victim, but that celel-Ci made a careless mistake, because she knew the places, the responsibility for the guard of the thing engaged only for two thirds only (Civ. 2nd, February 19th, 2004).

- the particular case of the letter-boxes.

In spite of the proof that a letter-box successor in title a damage revêt not an abnormal position or is not in bad condition, the instrumental role of the thing is indeed active and the responsibility for its guard is seen committed (ex: Civ. 2 {{E}}, June 15th, 2000).

the thing is moving and came into contact with the victim

When these two conditions are met, jurisprudence supposes the active role of the thing.

the thing is moving but did not come into contact with the victim

Article, Al 1st, while posing as condition with its application which the damage was caused by the fact of the accused thing, does not require therefore the materiality of a contact. The absence of contact between the thing and the person or the object which suffered the damage is not necessarily exclusive Causal link (2 stops Civ. January 22nd, 1940). There is thus no presumption of active role, it is with the victim to prove it.

the fact of several things

The damage occurred by the collision of several things.

Guard of the thing

; Definition It is the central condition of this system of responsibility. The stop Franck (Case. CH. Joined together, December 2nd, 1941) defined the guard of the thing like the use, the direction and the control of the thing. Thus the guard is defined under a material angle: to be able in fact on the thing. This capacity is objective, i.e. a démen or a infans can be a guard of the thing since the understanding is not a condition to keep the thing (Civ. 2nd, June 30th, 1966).

The guard must present a voluntary character, i.e. the author of the damage must have the will to be presented in the form of a guard of the thing. This condition is not expressly required by jurisprudence but it is under unclaimed

; Determination of the guard

the presumption of guard

Generally, it is the owner who is designated as guard. It is a stop of December 18th, 1958 (Case. Civ. 2nd) which revealed the presumption of guard of the owner. This one can be reversed with its load if it proves that someone else with use, the control and the direction of the thing. Moreover, when the determination of the owner is impossible, this presumption of guard weighs on the user of the thing (Civ. 2nd, November 28th, 2002).

the transfer of the guard

By principle it is possible to establish a transfer of the guard each time it is shown that a person, other that the owner, seized the use, the direction and the control of the thing. The transfer can be also established by a contract, like the trust deed.

Concerning the transfer of the guard and the bond of preposition, one considers that it is the principal which with the direction and the control of the thing. He would be thus guard of the thing in the place of his employee. However, the doctrines is questioned compared to the other shapes of tools which the employee (ex enjoys: the surgical material).

; The distinction " keep structure" /" keep comportement" Before this distinction the problems of the defect inherent were posed in the thing and not to its guard. Jurisprudence thus cleared up this point with the liquid Oxygène stop (Case. January 5th, 1956) by distingant two cases:

When the damage is due to the behavior of the thing i.e. the way in which it was used, it is the owner of the thing which will be famous the guard.
If the damage is due to the structure even of the thing, i.e. with the way in which it is made up it will be its manufacturer or his owner who will be regarded as the guard.

This distinction is used only when one is vis-a-vis a damage caused by a thing driven by a clean and dangerous dynamism.

; Problems of the collective guard A thing can be under the control of several people at the same time, one will speak then about collective guard. Each the collective people, guard, could be held of the damage. That has as an interest to find persons in charge when it is impossible to designate a clean person in charge. On the assumption that the victim belongs to the group of collective guards, the responsibilities for the other guards will be then isolated.

Conditions of exemption

The liability for the things is also automatically objective a responsibility known as. The only conditions of exemption are thus those of the foreign cause:

the major force

It is not necessary that the damage was creates by a vice intern of the thing. If the event were normally foreseeable, then the major force could not be retained. The irresistibility of the event is appreciated in abstracto . The major force is exonératoire if and only if it because the damage in its totality.

the Makes third

If the damage is caused by the fact of a third, it can be exonératoire if this fact is of all the natures of the major force.

the behavior of the victim

This behavior can possibly exonerate the guard of its responsibility in particular if the victim accepted the risks. A stop dated April 6th, 1987 specifies that the exemption will be partial if the fact of the victim contributed to the supervening of the damage. Another stop dated March 8th, 1995 specifies that the risks must be normal and foreseeable so that there is exemption.

Special diets of liability for the things

The compensation for the traffic accidents

Fields of application of the law

It is a law of law and order which has vocation to apply as well in the contractual field as criminal.

One needs a traffic accident

This accident must be caused by a vehicle which has vocation to circulate.

It is necessary that implies a terrestrial Véhicule with engine.
It is necessary that this vehicle is implied in the accident, i.e. it must of have been one of the components.

Right to compensation

; Concept of implication, condition of the right to compensation The law says that the victim is entitled to compensation if a terrestrial engine vehicle is implied in the accident. A stop dated March 16th, 1996 specifies that it is enough to prove that the vehicle could play a causal part in the damage without the effectivity of this causal role being to be established: Jean-Luc Aubert speaks about a report/ratio of possibility. The contact between the vehicle and the seat of the Dommage presupposes a presumption of implication.

Since it is proven that a terrestrial engine vehicle is implied in an traffic accident, there is compensation for the victim by the guard or the driver of this vehicle.

The debtor of the allowance

It is of the driver or the guard of the vehicle, but actually, it is especially its Assurance. Any action against another person will be able to be made only on the common Droit. The debtor is identified compared to two situations:

when only one vehicle is implied, the victim will be able to act against the driver which with the effective control of this vehicle but also against the guard of this vehicle. It is possible to act against both simultaneously.
when several vehicles are implied, the non-conducting victims will pouront to act against all the drivers and all the guards of the implied vehicles. The conducting victims will pouront as for them to act the ones against the others.

The liability for the defective products

See too

Makes generating responsibility
Responsabilité for the personal fact
Responsabilité because of others

Random links:

Darnieulles | Bill McGarry | Châtillon-the-king | Alina Jidkova | Sürgün (Ottoman Empire)