Law of obligations (France)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In French jurisprudence , the law of obligations (also the law of obligations ; French droit des obligations ) refers to a field of law that deals with the creation and effects of mandatory rights. It is one of the core areas of French civil law and is contained in Articles 1101 to 2278 C.civ. treated. There are also ancillary laws such as the Consumer Code ( Code de la Consommation ). It is divided into contractual, contract-like ( quasi-contrats ) and legal obligations as well as the general rules for their transfer and loss.

Contractual obligations

The contract is debt or "mandatory" (= law of obligations) by the French legal doctrine as unification classified so that the unilateral legal transaction (such as Testament and gifting ) distinction and art. 1101 C.civ. legally defined :

Le contrat est une convention par laquelle une ou plusieurs personnes s'obligent, envers une ou plusieurs autres, à thunder, à faire ou à ne pas faire quelque chose .

"The contract is an agreement through which one or more persons undertake to one or more other persons to give, do or not to do something."

The purpose of a debt settlement (convention obligationnelle) is to establish a debt relationship. This traditionally distinguishes the treaty from other types of agreement: liberatorial (= expiry of obligations; cf. novation , cancellation ), real (cf. transfer of ownership , assignment ), etc.

Conclusion of contract

Legal capacity

According to Art. 1123 C.civ. basically be closed by everyone ( »toute personne« ). Exceptions to this may arise from the status of a person or the nature of the contract. A distinction is made between:

Capacity (capacité d'exercice)
The person can conclude contracts himself, but is deprived of the opportunity to exercise the resulting rights himself, for example minors or adults under guardianship
Legal capacity (capacité de jouissance)
It is not possible for the person to conclude a contract himself. Legal capacity always relates to a specific type of contract.

Will to finish

Freedom of contract

The most important contractual requirement is the agreement (also consensus) of the contracting parties: The contract is valid because the parties want it. In principle, freedom of contract applies here, i. H. It is up to everyone whether, with what content and with which contractual partner he wants to contract. This classical doctrine has recently been restricted by numerous exceptions; these can be divided into three groups:

  1. Compulsory contract: The contract is concluded with specific content between certain parties by order of a judge, for example according to Art. 285-1 C.civ .: In the event of a divorce, the judge can “order” a rental agreement for the marital home if the home is owned by one of the spouses and the other part has parental authority.
  2. There may be an obligation to conclude the contract, whereby the contractual partner can be freely chosen, as is the case with compulsory insurance.
  3. It is up to you whether a contract is concluded; however, if a contract is concluded, the partner cannot be freely chosen. Examples are the right of first refusal of state agencies and non-discrimination.
Offer and acceptance

In order for a contract to arise between the contracting parties, an offer ( offer or pollicitation ) must first be made. The offer must be sufficiently precise and concrete ( précise et ferme ). It is precise if it already contains all the central elements of the contract and the assumption is only a mere agreement. It is concrete when it is done without reservation; Reservations can arise either through an express agreement or from the nature of the contract.

Since the will of the parties alone is responsible for the conclusion of the contract, the offer can generally be made informally. It can be explicit or tacit (so-called offre tacite ); specific persons or the general public. The offer is generally not binding (exceptions apply under commercial law ). However, it is binding if the provider has set a deadline for acceptance; such a deadline can also result from the law (Art. L311-8 and Art. L312-10 C.conso.). If the provider cancels his offer even though such a deadline exists, the recipient can, according to one opinion, assert a claim for damages due to an unlawful act , according to another opinion, the contract is nevertheless concluded immediately.

Non-contractual obligations

Tort liability

French tort law is dealt with in the Civil Code in Part 3, Title 4, Chapter 2; this consists of only five articles 1382 to 1386. The general clause-like treatise in such brevity forced the jurisprudence to develop the law to a large extent, so that one can speak of the "gouvernement des juges en matière de responsabilité civile" in René Savatier's words .

Tort law differs from contract law in terms of the statute of limitations : in tort law this is 10 years, in contract law it can range from one to thirty years. Exemption clauses (clauses limitatives) are generally allowed in contract law, in tort law they are generally prohibited as public policy . The differentiation between the two types can sometimes be difficult, which is why their complete merger is sometimes required (as already stated in the law of July 5, 1985 ). The competition between claims from contract and tort is resolved differently than in Germany because of the dashing French tort law: there is a prohibition on the accumulation of claims ( non-cumul des responsabilités ). This prohibition of accumulation prohibits that the injured party of an unlawful act can assert a claim for damages in the context of a contractual relationship:

L'article 1382 du Code civil est inapplicable à la réparation d'un dommage se rattachant à l'exécution d'un engagement contractuel .

- Court of Cassation, judgment of 09.06.1993 - II Civil Chamber

The Court of Cassation (KH; the highest court in civil law matters) only wants to allow exceptions for cases of extreme malice - heavily criticized in the literature. The limits of the prohibition of accumulation are set by the duration of the contract and the contractual partners. Pre-contractual breaches of duty (fautes précontractuelles) are covered by tort law, but obligations to provide information should be subject to contract law. Post -contractual breaches of duty (fautes postcontractuelles) are also subject to tort law.

Personal liability

Articles 1382 and 1383 C.civ. first describe the requirements for culpably caused damage: These are faute , lien de causalité and dommage . The terms are to be understood further as fault, causal relationship and damage in the German legal system .

fault

Fault is defined as "a violation of behavior" that can be expected of citizens who respect the rules of orderly social coexistence with respect and prudence ". In contrast to contractual obligations, in which the standard of liability is the contract, the standard of fault is more diffuse and is more likely to be determined ex post by the judge; one also speaks of the diligence of the bonus paterfamilias .

Traditionally, culpability comprises three elements based on the three-part criminal structure :

  1. factual behavior (comportement de fait, élément matériel ): the basis of fault is a certain misconduct, an unauthorized act giving rise to liability, such as a simple punch; the misconduct can consist of either willful intent or a breach of duty ( negligence or negligence).
  2. Judgmental ability (qualification juridique, élément juridique ): In a second step, the behavior is related to a certain target behavior. Which behavior would have been appropriate in abstracto ? Of course, certain specific parameters are still taken into account for this abstract yardstick, such as certain professional qualifications of the perpetrator.
  3. Reputability and sanity (imputabilité du comportement, élément moral ): intent in the criminal sense was never required for fault. Nevertheless, doctrine and jurisprudence insisted on a subjective element. The perpetrator had to be aware of the consequences of his behavior. However, it was soon found inappropriate that the injured party should not receive compensation simply because the injuring party happened to be a minor or a mentally ill person . This was first made possible by the law of January 3, 1968 by inserting Art. 489-2 C.civ. eliminated, which expressly did not exclude liability for the mentally ill. By a plenary decision of May 9, 1984, this rule was extended to minors.

First of all, any violation of a legal norm of behavior constitutes fault. This concerns first of all violations of criminal law , but also of norms of civil law ( e.g. Art. 1596 C.civ). It does not matter whether the perpetrator knows the norm: " Ignorance does not protect against punishment ". If there is no standard, the judge has quasi-legislative freedom to decide whether the perpetrator's actual and target behavior match. The following case groups are noteworthy:

  • Professional fault (faute professional): Violations of the behavioral norms of a professional group can lead to criminal liability. Although there is liability towards their contractual partners anyway, they are also liable towards third parties if they violate the due care required in their profession, for example if an architect causes damage to a neighboring house through a faulty construction.
  • Service fault (faute de service): This case group deals with the question of whether an employee who is at fault in fulfilling his employment contract is personally liable or whether his employer is liable for him. In administrative law , a distinction is made between personal and service fault for civil servants. The Court of Cassation upheld the employee's personal liability for a long time. In more recent times, however, it has joined the administrative law handling and excluded personal liability of the employee if the damaging act occurred in the context of his professional task.
  • Failure to cease and desist (faute d'abstention): The individualistic preference of the civil code initially blocked the recognition of omission as a reason for liability, except in cases in which there was an obligation to act by law. More recently this attitude has been abandoned: Antoine Loysel's legal proverb applies : "qui peut et n'empêche, pêche" .
  • Fault in sport or games (faute de jeu): In the context of sporting events, actions for tort can not be brought if the injuries suffered are only within the normal risk of injury of the sport. A foul during a soccer game is not necessarily at fault in the legal sense. Of course, this does not apply to people who are not involved in the game.
  • Fault in the performance of a contract (faute dans l'exécution d'un contrat): Due to the prohibition of accumulation, there is a general rule that in addition to a contract, tort liability is excluded. There is only room for tort liability if 1. a third party supports a contractual partner in the event of a breach of contract or 2. a third party suffers damage as a result of the breach of contract. Since a plenary decision in 2006, contractual behavior has been used as the benchmark for tort liability.
  • Abuse of rights : It has been recognized since the beginning of the 20th century that the holder of a right can be criminally prosecuted if he abuses this right. This is undisputed when he uses the law with harmful intent (intention de nuire) , but is also accepted when the law is used with “blameworthy recklessness ” (légèreté blâmable) . This was affirmed by the Court of Cassation, for example, when a consumer organization used its right to criticize (droit de critique) in its magazine without an objective basis inorderto considera company's product with accusations hâtives (KH, November 7, 1990 - II ZK).
Causal relationship

Anyone who sues for tort must also prove that the damage is attributable to the defendant. The causal connection is to be understood more in the way of judicial evaluation as a practical question of attribution rather than as a real legal dogmatic problem as in German law. Although the equivalence theory and the adequacy theory are also represented in French literature , they are practically devoid of any relevance - ignored in case law. The following case groups deserve special attention:

  • special disposition of the injured party: The principle “the injured party must accept the injured party as it is” applies. In the event of an accident with a hemophilia, the injuring party can not relieve himself by the fact that the damage would have been much less in a healthy injured party.
  • Liability cascade (dommages en cascade): If a second damage event occurs after and due to the first damage event , the liability of the first damaging party for the consequential damage is not excluded. If the victim of a traffic accident dies in a second accident on the way to hospital, the person who caused the traffic accident is also liable for the death of the injured party (KH, II ZK 13.10.1976, but note StrK 14.06.1990). This should apply even if a third party (the husband) commits suicide after the death of the injured party (his wife) (KH, May 17, 1973 - II ZK).
  • Group of perpetrators : If a group of perpetrators commits an illegal act, they are liable as accomplices (coauteurs) . For tort liability, however, it should not be sufficient if the perpetrator happened to be in a group (as in hunting cases).
  • Force majeure : Fault is excluded through force majeure if it was caused by force majeure itself. In addition, the causal connection is also denied if force majeure occurs after the damaging event. A comparison is made here as to whether the damage would have occurred even if there had been no fault.
  • Uncertain causality and lost opportunity: If the causality of the damaging event is uncertain (causalité incertaine) , but there is undisputed causality between the damaging party and the damaging event , the damaging party is nevertheless liable, as he is the victim of the loss of a chance (perte d'une chance) . If a doctor commits a medical malpractice but it cannot be proven with certainty that the patient would not have died anyway, the doctor is liable because he has deprived the patient of the chance of recovery (KH, 03/18/1969 - I ZK).

If two faults are simultaneously responsible for the damage, then each of the two injuring parties is fully responsible for the damage. In this case, the injured party can choose from which injured party he would like to have the damage compensated; they are liable to the jointly and severally injured party. The judge sets a quota for the relationship between the injuring parties so that one injuring party can take recourse against the other for his quota. If the injured party himself is at fault, this is at his own expense.

Third party liability

Paragraphs 4 to 6 of Art. 1384 describe the requirements for liability for third parties: Paragraph 4 for the liability of parents for their children, Paragraph 5 for business owners ( commettants ) for vicarious agents ( préposés ) and Paragraph 6 for teachers for theirs Student. In contrast to the German § 831 BGB, there is no exculpation option for assistants .

Supervisor liability
Parents' liability (Art. 1384 Para. 4 C.civ.)

The classic view of parents' liability for their children was based on the idea of ​​double fault: on the one hand, the fault of the child, which led to damage to a third party, and, on the other hand, the fault of the parents (until 1970 the father) who badly caused their child educated or supervised in response to their the powers granted to them under Art. 371-3 C.civ. to be entitled. It was suspected that the parents were at fault and could therefore be refuted. This view is now outdated by case law. It is no longer necessary for the child to be at fault. Likewise, if the parents are at fault, they are no longer a prerequisite for their liability. Rather, with the development of modern insurance, the underlying notion is that children - similar dangerous objects - pose a risk to society whose insurance is up to the parents rather than the injured party.

The prerequisites for parental liability for their children are:

  • Damage caused by minors: Liability only applies to minors; she leaves when she comes of age ( émancipation ). It is no longer necessary for the minor to be at fault. The liability of the parents is therefore no longer to be understood as a guarantee, but as a substitute for the liability of the child, as the plenary session of the Court of Cassation confirmed in a decision of December 13, 2002:

«Pour que la responsabilité de plein droit des père et mère exerçant l'autorité parentale sur un mineur habitant avec eux puisse être recherchée, il suffit que le dommage invoqué par la victime ait été causé par le fait, même non fautif, you mineur. »

- Court of Cassation, decision of 13 December 2002 in plenary
  • A parent exercising parental authority ( autorité parentale )
  • Cohabitation of parents and child (cohabitation): According to recent jurisprudence, cohabitation always exists as long as the child is a minor; it does not end with a stay with the grandparents, in a boarding school and not even if the child leaves the parental home without permission.

The legal consequence is that the parents are jointly and severally responsible for the damage caused.

Liability of teachers for students

The liability of teachers for their students is a relic from the time when the civil code was created, when education was largely privately organized. The nationalization of the education system therefore had to change the liability of teachers. The law of April 5, 1937 made it clear that teachers are only liable for their own fault. In any case, in these cases the state is usually liable for damages. The preliminary draft reform of the Code of Obligations therefore proposes the abolition of teachers' liability in Art. 1384 C.civ. in front.

Liability of craftsmen for apprentices

The liability of a craftsman (artisan) for his apprentice (apprenti) according to Art. 1384 goes back to the fact that at the time the Civil Code was created, the apprentices lived with their master and the move from their parents' house was connected with a kind of transfer of parental responsibility. The craftsman's liability is therefore regulated in a similar way to that of the parents: the craftsman is liable if the apprentice actually lives with him, otherwise during the time he is under the supervision of the master. The craftsman can exculpate himself.

Principal Liability

The liability of the principal for his assistants is practically the most important case of third-party liability. Their basic ideas can be found here in a concentrated form: The third party carries out tasks in the interests of and under the guidance of the principal; the business owner creates a risk and his fault in the monitoring and guidance is assumed and the injured party is given a financially strong debtor who is responsible for insuring himself.

The prerequisites for principal liability are:

  1. Subordination relationship between principal and auxiliary person : the third party must be auxiliary person of the liable person; This is mostly shown in the fact that there is a relationship of authority ( lien d'autorité ), a causal connection, between the two . This can initially result from a legal relationship: usually an employment contract or an authorization contract. On the other hand, no mere assistant is to be assumed in the case of a work contract . However, a purely factual causal relationship is also sufficient: For example, when the owner of a car briefly hands over the wheel to a friend and drives along as a passenger.
  2. Fault of the assistant: Originally, the assistant was required to be at fault. However, over the course of time, case law has changed the position of the business owner from a guarantee position to a substitute position: On the one hand, fault of the auxiliary person is excluded if this person is the case holder. On the other hand, it is not necessary for the auxiliary person to be at fault if the damage occurs to a contractual partner of the principal, since in this case the principal is contractually liable anyway. Finally, in the context of the construct of official fault, personal assistant liability is excluded; nevertheless, the principal is also liable to non-contractual partners.
  3. Fault in the exercise of his function: The principal is only liable for his auxiliary person if he causes damage while exercising this function. This is controversial if the auxiliary person misuses the assigned area of ​​responsibility for private activities, for example the chauffeur who carries out private passenger transport in his company car. There is a narrow and a broad interpretation: the civil chambers take a narrow view, according to which the principal is not liable if the assistant exceeds the limits of the task assigned to him; For a long time the criminal chamber upheld the broad view that the principal is liable even if the auxiliary person causes damage on the occasion of the execution of his order. The dispute seems to have been decided in favor of the narrower view after a plenary decision. However, the literature is skeptical of the narrow, hostile attitude towards the injured.

If these requirements are met, the principal is liable for the assistant; Exculpation is not possible. In principle, the auxiliary person is also jointly and severally liable with the principal. According to the traditional view, the business owner could of course later take recourse against the auxiliary persons, at least in cases in which the auxiliary persons were at fault. In practice, this does not occur because the insurer has recourse according to Art. 121-12 Para. 3 C.assur. forbidden is.

General third party liability through judicial legal training

Until 1991, third-party liability was limited to the groups of cases provided for in the law. In a plenary decision "Blieck" of March 29, 1991, this view was revised and Art. 1384 para. 1 made the basis of a principle of third party liability. Furthermore, according to the case law, legal persons are liable for faults that were committed by their bodies as natural persons .

Material liability

No-fault liability

Art. 1384 para. 1 C.civ. stipulates an obligation to pay compensation for damage caused by property. As early as 1896 ( arrêt du remorqueur , KH, ZK 16.06.1896) the Court of Cassation raised the article on the independent justification of tort liability as a mere transition from the legislature as a transition to Articles 1385 and 1386 : If a thing causes damage, it is suspected that their holder ( gardien de la chose ) is at fault. In the judgment “Jand'heur” (KH, 02/13/1930) it was also made clear that liability “à la garde de la chose, not à la chose elle-même” and therefore restrictions on the matter advocated in the literature are a rejection granted. Whether the thing is movable or immovable, whether it has an internal defect (vice inhérent) , whether it is dangerous or whether it is in motion or not, does not matter: every thing can be held liable according to Art. 1384 Para. 1 C. civ. justify.

Furthermore, it does not matter whether the thing caused the damage by itself or whether it is operated by a person, such as a car. It is sufficient that there is a causal connection between the damage and it, which happens through judgmental consideration. The injured party must provide evidence of impairment by the thing, the causal connection is assumed in his favor, except in the following cases:

  • Dormant thing (chose inerte): If the thing was purely passive, it must be proven that it was in a special condition (faulty stairs, slippery floor and so on).
  • No contact: If there was no contact between the injured party and the thing, the injured party must prove how they could still cause the damage (example: a flying soccer ball moves a cyclist to take an evasive maneuver).

Liability addressee is the case holder; The holder of the case is whoever determines the use, conduct and possession of actual violence (l'usage, la direction et le contrôle) , as he can - at least in theory - prevent the damage. This means a purely factual approach: the thief also becomes the holder of the property , not an owner . The vicarious agent is also not the holder of the case, since he determines usage but not direction . It may not seem consistent that the case law considers the facts purely objectively and that children and the mentally ill ( déments ) can also exercise the facts . The decisive point in time is the point in time when the damage occurs. It is presumed refutably in favor of the aggrieved party that the owner is the holder of the case.

In the case of a large number of people, a whole-hand situation (garde en commun) can exist, for example in the case of a group of football players or a hunting party. In the case law, the distinction between state disorder (gardien de la structure) and behavior disorder (gardien du comportement) (KH, 11/30/1988 - II ZK), which is heavily attacked by literature, can be found : The manufacturer of a television set should in casu still be seven years after Sale to be a disruptor to its construction and thus also to be liable for its implosion. If several objects jointly cause the damage, the person causing the condition is liable as the person responsible for each object (responsabilités croisées) .

The case holder can exculpate himself (exonération) if he can prove that the injured party has consented to the risk of injury. This case plays a role above all in the field of leisure activities such as ball sports or equestrian sports. In contrast, the requirements for force majeure are much more difficult to meet for the alleged damaging party: 1. There must be a fact that is outside the matter itself (fait extérieur à la chose) , 2. the fact must be unpredictable (fait imprévisible) , and 3. the fact must have been irresistible (fait irrésistible, insurmontable ou inévitable) . Exculpation in the case of contributory negligence on the part of the perpetrator can lead to complete exemption from liability if his contributory negligence equals force majeure or coincidence. If it is only a matter of simple fault (faute simple) on the part of the injured party, at least partial exculpation can be considered. The case law of the Court of Cassation has at times called into doubt the possibility of partial exculpation for road traffic accidents (as in the famous judgment "Desmares", KH, July 21, 1982 - II ZK), but this has become obsolete with the intervention of the legislature for these cases. Finally, the perpetrator can exculpate himself if he can prove that third party negligence (fait d'un tiers) such as force majeure or coincidence caused the damage. If third-party negligence is only partially the cause of the damage, the damaging party is 100% responsible towards the injured party, but can take recourse against the third party through a recourse action ( action récursoire ).

Special liability issues
  • Animal owner liability. As early as when the civil code was created, Article 1385 stipulated the liability of the animal owner or of the person using the animal. With the judgment of October 27, 1885, this liability was tightened by the fact that exculpation was only possible in the event of force majeure. Art. 1385 C.civ. is not applicable for damage caused by game (KH, 09.01.1991 - II ZK). With the recognition of Art. 1384 as an independent basis for claims, its significance has dwindled considerably.
  • Building owner liability. Likewise, since 1804, the liability of the building owner is in Art. 1386 C.civ. anchored. He is liable for damage caused by rubble (ruin) due to poor construction (vice de construction) or maintenance (défaut d'entretien) . Only the owner is liable, not the mere holder.
  • Liability for accidents at work. When it comes to liability for accidents at work, the droit commun is largely overlaid by social security law: the employee is automatically entitled to a claim for damages for work-related accidents with physical injuries, which is covered by the social security funds (Caisses de Sécurité sociale) . Any further damage will only be reimbursed by the social insurance if an inexcusable fault (faute inexcusable) on the part of the employer can be proven. A claim of the employee against his employer according to Art. 1384 C.civ. out; however, such a claim may exist against third parties.
  • Liability for fire damage. With the law of November 7th, 1922, the French legislature adopted the basic rule of Art. 1384 Paragraph 1 C.civ. For fire damage in paragraphs 2 and 3 switched off: There is no strict liability for damage caused by the fire to movable or immovable objects : culpability must be proven. Since this regulation is unfavorable for the injured party, the courts interpret it narrowly.
  • Liability for damage caused by aircraft. Damage suffered by passengers in an aircraft accident generally gives rise to contractual liability. In the case of international aviation accidents, the Montréal Convention of May 28, 1999 regulated that these lead to automatic liability towards the passenger, which Article L. 321-3 of the Aviation Code extended to include purely domestic flights. Liability is limited except in cases of inexcusable fault. Damages incurred by third parties are to be compensated for even in cases of force majeure (law of May 31, 1924).
  • Ship collisions (abordage). In the event of collisions between watercraft (engins flottants) , the law of July 5, 1934 for inland waterway transport and the law of July 7, 1967 for sea transport mean that liability under Art. 1843 C.civ. locked out. Except in cases of proven fault, it is up to the injured party to adhere to their insurance.
  • Neighborhood disputes. For a long time, impairments emanating from neighboring properties were treated as abuse of law (in this case of property), culpability or under the aspect of the facts (e.g. of harmful fumes). Since two judgments of the Court of Cassation (KH, III ZK 04.02.1971 and II ZK 19.11.1986), such claims should be based on an independent basis of "exceeding normal neighborly impairment", which should be pertinent even through no fault of one's own. What is still considered a normal impairment is subject to the free assessment of the judges of the first instance. The owner is always more liable, but also the actual cause of the impairment.
  • Road traffic accidents. Road traffic accidents have long been the paradigm on which the case law on Art. 1384 C.civ. until the matter finally received legislative support because of its practical significance.
    • Applicability: the law applies to all accidents caused by motorized land vehicles (véhicules terrestres à moteur) with the exception of rail vehicles; Damage caused by others to such a vehicle is handled via the droit commun (Art. 1382 for pedestrians, Art. 1384 for cyclists). The second prerequisite for the applicability of the law is that the damage is related to road traffic: This is broadly defined and also includes damage to private property as well as any movement of the vehicle. The law does not distinguish whether the damage was caused by private or public persons, nor whether or not there was a contract between the injured party and the injured party (Art. 1). The law takes precedence over all other potentially applicable regulations (such as Art. 1384).
    • Liability requirements: The injured party is entitled to compensation as soon as a vehicle is “impliqué” in the accident . This involvement encompasses much more than mere causality and is divided into two groups: involvement in the accident and involvement in the damage. In terms of involvement in the accident, it does not matter whether the vehicle was actively driving or just parked. Rather, involvement in the accident always occurs when a collision (choc) occurred; However, the injured party does not have to have been involved in the collision: If parts are thrown around in a collision between two vehicles and injure a pedestrian, they are also involved in this accident (KH, 02/28/1990 - II ZK). A vehicle is also involved in an accident if there is no collision, but the vehicle "plays a role" ( "joue un rôle" , KH, 02/19/1992 - II ZK). The involvement in the damage requires that the damage is attributable to the damaging party, which is suspected.
    • Liable: according to Art. 2 of the law, the driver of the vehicle as well as the person responsible.
    • Exculpation: According to Art. 2, exculpation is excluded even in the event of force majeure; the path to exculpation can be opened solely through willful intent or through fault of the injured party as the sole cause of the accident (Art. 3 Para. 3). Even in these cases, however, exculpation is restricted to persons under 16 years of age or over 70 years of age.
  • Product liability: Product liability is based on EC Directive 85/374 EC, even if it was implemented in France with a delay of more than 10 years in the law of May 19, 1998 . It can be found in Articles 1386-1 ff. C.civ. Product liability is cumulative to liability according to the droit commun. Articles 1386-1 ff. C.civ. from a factual point of view, if a defective product has been sold and this has caused damage. In personal terms, the liable producer must be the defective product.

damages

Compensable damage

The aggrieved party has the burden of proving the existence of the damage (dommage or préjudice) . However, the facts to be proven differ in detail depending on the type of damage.

literature

Textbooks:

  • Alain Bénabent: Droit civil. Les obligations . Montchrestien, Paris 2007, ISBN 978-2-7076-1546-6 .
  • Jean Carbonnier: Droit civil . 5th edition. Volume II, Les biens, Les obligations. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris 2004, ISBN 2-13-054739-7 .

Encyclopedias:

  • Jean-Luc Aubert and Éric Savaux (eds.): Répertoire de droit civil . 11 volumes. Dalloz, Paris 1997, ISBN 978-2-247-04057-5 (loose-leaf collection).

Magazines:

Remarks

  1. ↑ Legal comparison: In the German legal circle, the accumulation of claims applies, according to which the claims from the contract and the tortious act can stand side by side.
  2. ^ In French: Cass. civ. 2 e , 9 juin 1993 ; Cass. civ. 2 e = Cour de cassation, deuxième chambre civile .
  3. ↑ In French: responsabilité du fait personnel , literally “liability for one's own actions”.
  4. ↑ In French: "Tout fait quelconque de l'homme, qui cause à autrui un dommage, oblige celui par la faute duquel il est arrivé, à le réparer."
    In German: "Any behavior of a person that harms another, obliges those through whose fault the damage was caused to pay compensation. "
  5. ↑ In French: "Chacun est responsable du dommage qu'il a causé non seulement par son fait, mais encore par sa négligence ou par son imprudence."
    In German: "You are not only liable for the damage you cause by     your own behavior but also for those who are brought about by negligence or negligence. "
  6. ↑ In French: "La faute délictuelle est une atteinte à l'attitude que l'on peut attendre entre concitoyens normalement conscients et respectueux d'équilibre qu'exige toute vie en société".
  7. ↑ Comparative law: In legal Latin bonus paterfamilias - denotes a standard of care that is used to differentiate gross negligence ( culpa lata ) from slight negligence ( culpa levis in concreto ). It corresponds to the German-legal, in the traffic required care of the "informed legal comrade", i. H. the care of an average attentive and conscientious person.
  8. ↑ In French: "Nul n'est censé ignorer la loi"
  9. ↑ Related German proverb: “Stealers are stealers, that's true”.
  10. ↑ In French: "l'auteur du dommage doit prendre la victime comme il la trouve" ; after Viney.
  11. ↑ In French: responsabilité du fait d'autrui , literally "liability for other people's behavior".
  12. ↑ In French: Avant-projet de réforme du droit des obligations .
  13. ↑ In French: responsabilité du fait des choses , literally "liability for damage caused by things".
  14. ↑ In French: Code de l'aviation civile .
  15. ^ In French: " troubles excédant les inconvénients normaux de voisinage ".
  16. ^ In French: " le dommage réparable ".

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Bulletin civil de la Cour de cassation , II, n ° 204.
  2. ↑ Bull. Civ. , II, n ° 227