Cour de cassation

The Court:

Given that according to the decision below (Paris, 5 October 1970), upholding the judgment at first instance, there was a collision during a football match between Christian Durand and Alain Rochman, both minors, in which the latter was injured in the leg, that suit for compensation for the damage suffered by his son was brought by Charles Rochman against Lionel Durand, the father and legal representative of Christian, as well as against Riou, who was umpiring the match, the Meudon Sports Club, of which Christian Durand was a member, and the Club’s insurer, Mutuelle générale française accidents; ….

Given that the decision below is criticised for dismissing Rochman’s claims although the evidence given by witnesses at the police inquiry, the report of which was allegedly falsified, agreed that Durand’s action had been unduly violent and dangerous, and on the further ground that that an action which is violent or even just imprudent should, regardless of any element of intention, incur the sanctions of articles 1382 and 1383 Code civil;

But given, first, that the complainant did not produce the police report which had allegedly been falsified, so that the complaint of falsification cannot be accepted, and given, secondly, that the judgment, based on proper reasons and an analysis of the police enquiry, held that Rochman, on the right wing, was in possession of the ball on the opposing team’s territory when Durand, the defending goalkeeper, ran in front of him and fell on the ball with a view to saving it, a perfectly normal action consistent with the rules of the game, and stated that it was not established that Durand was guilty of excessive zeal or even that his conduct was abnormal or in breach of the rules of the game;

Given that in making these findings which indicate that no fault had been proved against Durand, the Court of Appeal, in its conclusive evaluation of the evidence put in front of it, gave a statutory basis for its decision immune to the appellant’s criticisms;

For these reasons DISMISSES the application for review.

Subsequent Developments

Doctrine upheld. See Civ.2, 16 November 2000, Bull. no. 151: "Having found that the bodily injury suffered by a player who had received an elbow blow in the face during a friendly match was caused by another player's clumsiness, who manifested no agressivity or ill-will, and that no breach of rules or of observance of the customs of the game had been committed, the Court of Appeal has correctly deduced that the latter should be discharged of all liability" and Civ.2, 5 December 1990, Bull no. 258: "A Court of Appeal which , so as to order the party causing injury to pay compensation to the victim, finds that French boxing is a combat sport entailing risks and that the victim injured himself by falling onto the ground, without finding any deliberate fault contrary to the rules of sport, fails to legally justify its judgement as regards article 1382 of the Civil Code".

Doctrine upheld. See Civ.2, 16 November 2000, Bull. no. 151: "Having found that the bodily injury suffered by a player who had received an elbow blow in the face during a friendly match was caused by another player's clumsiness, who manifested no agressivity or ill-will, and that no breach of rules or of observance of the customs of the game had been committed, the Court of Appeal has correctly deduced that the latter should be discharged of all liability" and Civ.2, 5 December 1990, Bull no. 258: "A Court of Appeal which , so as to order the party causing injury to pay compensation to the victim, finds that French boxing is a combat sport entailing risks and that the victim injured himself by falling onto the ground, without finding any deliberate fault contrary to the rules of sport, fails to legally justify its judgement as regards article 1382 of the Civil Code".

Back to top

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