Civil Liability
Explanation
Tort liability arises when a person performs an act that harms the interest of another without right. The law distinguishes between an offense (le délit), which is a harmful act committed intentionally. It also distinguishes a quasi-offense (le quasi-délit), which is a harmful act committed unintentionally (Article 121).
Every act resulting in unlawful damage obligates its perpetrator to provide compensation (la réparation) if they have discernment. A person lacking capacity is liable for their illicit acts if performed with awareness. If the perpetrator lacks discernment and the injured party cannot obtain compensation from the custodian, the judge orders the perpetrator to pay fair compensation (Article 122).
The custodian of an animal (le gardien de l'animal) is liable for damages caused by their animal even if it escapes. This liability remains even if there is a prior contract between the custodian and the injured party. It is only lifted by proving force majeure (la force majeure) or the fault of the injured party (Article 129).
The law imposes strict liability (la responsabilité de plein droit) on the custodian of movable and immovable inanimate objects. These objects include a car, airplane, or elevator. The custodian is liable for the damages of these objects even if they were not under their actual management (Article 131).
It is not sufficient for the custodian of inanimate objects to prove they committed no fault to escape liability. This liability is only removed if the custodian proves force majeure or the fault of the injured party. A prior contract does not prevent the application of this liability unless the law provides otherwise (Article 131).
Official legal articles
replace · 1932-11-21: Open the official text
Think deeper
Why did the legislator impose strict liability on the custodian of inanimate objects that is not removed merely by proving the absence of fault, and how does this relate to the protection of injured parties?
Flashcards
What is the difference in law between an offense and a quasi-offense?
An offense is an act that harms the interest of another intentionally and without right. A quasi-offense harms the interest of another without right but unintentionally (Article 121).
When is the judge entitled to order a perpetrator lacking the capacity of discernment to pay compensation?
When the injured party is unable to obtain compensation from the person entrusted with the custody of that person, taking into account the condition of both parties.
Is the custodian of an animal exempted from liability if the animal escapes from them?
No, the custodian of an animal is liable for the damage caused by their animal even if it has strayed or escaped.
What are the cases in which liability is lifted from the custodian of an animal or the custodian of inanimate objects?
Liability is lifted only if the custodian establishes proof of force majeure or a fault committed by the injured party.
Is it sufficient for the custodian of inanimate objects to prove that they did not commit a fault to be exempted from liability?
No, it is not sufficient for the custodian to prove that they did not commit a fault, rather they must prove force majeure or the fault of the injured party.
Does the existence of a prior contract between the custodian of inanimate objects and the injured party preclude the application of the rule of liability arising from things?
It does not preclude it, unless there is a provision in the law to the contrary.
Practice questions
A person performed an act that harmed the interest of their neighbor without right but unintentionally. How is this act legally described?
A quasi-offense is an act that harms the interest of another without right but unintentionally (Article 121).
A person lacking capacity performed an illicit act with awareness and caused damage. Are they liable for this act?
A person lacking capacity is liable for illicit acts they perform with awareness causing damage (Article 122).
A guard dog escaped from its owner's house and bit a passerby. What is the legal ruling for the custodian of the dog?
The animal custodian is liable for damage caused by their animal even if it escaped (Article 129).
A moving car caused damage to a pedestrian. The driver proved that they were driving carefully and did not commit any fault. Are they exempted from liability?
Proving absence of fault is insufficient; liability is only removed by force majeure or victim's fault (Article 131).
Does the existence of a prior employment contract between the custodian of the animal and the injured party prevent the application of the custodian's liability?
Custodian liability applies without a contrary provision, even if bound by a prior employment contract (Article 129).
Case problems
An elevator cable in a commercial building snapped and fell, resulting in the injury of a person inside. The building owner (the custodian of the elevator) claimed that they performed periodic maintenance yesterday and did not commit any fault in management or supervision. Will the building owner succeed in evading liability?
Model answer
The building owner will not succeed in evading liability.
The building owner is considered the custodian of an inanimate object like the elevator by law (Article 131).
The custodian of inanimate objects bears strict liability for damages they cause during use (Article 131).
It is not sufficient for the custodian to prove that they did not commit any fault to evade liability.
This liability is only removed by establishing proof of force majeure or the fault of the injured party.
Self-grading rubric
A child lacking the capacity of discernment threw a stone and broke a car window. The injured party attempted to claim compensation from the child's father (the person entrusted with his custody), but it turned out that the father is completely insolvent and owns nothing. The child himself owns a sum of money he recently inherited. Can the injured party have recourse directly against the child?
Model answer
Yes, the injured party can have recourse against the child in this specific case.
If damages are caused by a person lacking discernment and compensation cannot be obtained from the custodian (Article 122).
The judge is entitled to intervene in this exceptional case.
The judge may order the perpetrator lacking discernment to pay fair compensation (Article 122).
When making this decision, the judge must take into account the condition of both parties, meaning the injured party and the child.