Case:
Bull. Civ. I 1991 no. 259 p. 171 (89-15090) Case Evrard v. Dimatal
Date:
09 October 1991
Note:
Translated French Cases and Materials under the direction of Professor B. Markesinis and M. le Conseiller Dominique Hascher
Translated by:
Tony Weir
Copyright:
Professor B. S. Markesinis

Cour de cassation:

In view of article 1147 Code civil:

Given that M. and Mme Evrard, who run a butcher’s business, bought from the Dimatal company a “hydraulic press” for use in sausage-making manufactured by the Manurhin company, and that on 5 January 1983 while cleaning the machine Mme Evrard lost three fingers when her left hand got caught between the plunger and the cylinder; that after an expert report had been called for by the court, Mme Evrard attributed the accident to a design defect in the machine and sued Dimatal and Manurhin for compensation for the harm she suffered in consequence;

Given that the court of appeal dismissed her claim on the ground that Mme Evrard, though aware that there was clearly something wrong with the machine, did not ask for it to be checked or put right, did not follow the instructions given by the manufacturer, and failed to take the most elementary precautions;

But given that after holding that the accident was directly caused by a fault in the design and manufacture of a piece of equipment whose use was rendered dangerous by such defect and that consequently the manufacturer was contractually liable to Mme Evrard, the court of appeal could not without violating the text cited above treat the fault of the victim, which was not the sole cause, as a total defence;

For these reasons,

QUASHES the decision of 24 March 1989 by the Court of Appeal of Douai, and remands the case to the Court of Appeal of Amiens.

This note on subsequent developments reflects the legal situation as of October 2004.

Civ 1, 9 October 1991: Since some judgments which are now old (13 April 1934 and 1 December 1936), the Cour de cassation has decided that a victim's fault in principle only has the effect of partial exoneration, unless, as is reaffirmed in the present judgment, the victim's fault appears to be the sole cause of the harm. This case law is still current (cf Cass com, 15 January 2002, published, pourvoi no 98-20.972, accepting the fault of the customer of a bank as the sole cause of his harm).

Translation by Raymond Youngs

 

Back to top

This page last updated Thursday, 15-Dec-2005 09:05:51 CST. Copyright 2007. All rights reserved.