Cour de cassation, Chambre mixte

The Court:

In view of article 1382 Code civil;

Given that this text, prescribing that the person responsible for any act which causes damage to another is bound to repair it, does not require, in the case of a fatal accident, that there be any legal relationship between the decedent and the plaintiff; Given that on the claim for damages by Mlle Gaudras for the harm she suffered as a result of the death of her lover Paillette in a traffic accident for which Dangereux had been held responsible the decision under attack reversed the first instance judgment in her favour, which had held that this concubinage was perfectly stable and not unlawful in any respect;

Given that the Court of Appeal dismissed Mlle Gaudras’s claim for the sole reason that concubinage creates no rights between the parties to it either for their own benefit or for that of third parties, and that in subjecting the application of article 1382 to a condition which it does not contain it violated the text in question;

For these reasons QUASHES the decision below.

Doctrine upheld. See Jurisclasseur already cited (“Elements Linked to the Possibility of Indemnification for Loss/Wrongful Harm and Lack of Standing of the Victim”): Close relations of a person who has been directly harmed may suffer indirect loss and have the right to claim indemnification. It has never been contested that the spouse, the parents or those who are closely allied [even persons who are fiancés: Crim. 5 Jan. 1956 and 16 Dec. 1954] are entitled to claim indemnification for such indirect loss. The only difficulty relates to mental suffering. It can almost be said that there exists between the closest members of a family (father, mother, children) an irrefutable presumption; between relations who are further removed or between engaged persons the reality of affective loss must be proved. With regard to loss suffered by a concubine, the case of Métenier (Cass. Civ. 27 Jul. 1937) denied a concubine the right to claim indemnification for the loss caused by the death of her lover. The Court held in that case that the fact of living as concubines could not give rise to rights in favour of the latter as against third parties. The reason given for this decision was that the plaintiff in an action for damages must prove, not any kind of loss, but the existence of harm to an interest protected by law. Since living as concubines was outside the law, a concubine could not show the existence of such an interest. After a period of disagreement at the heart of the Court itself, a decision of the Composite Chamber unified the cases in a way which was favourable to a female concubine, basing itself on the reasoning that art. 1382 of the Civil Code, “which lays down that anyone causing harm to another shall compensate for it, does not, in the case of death, require that there should exist a link recognised by law between the deceased and the plaintiff claiming compensation”. This decision required, nevertheless, that, in order that an action by a female concubine may lie, the relationship with her lover must not be criminal. Since the Divorce Law of 11 July 1975 abolished the crime of adultery, any concubine may now claim indemnification for the loss caused by the death of his or her lover brought about by a third party, it being of little account that the relationship was tainted by adultery ( Crim. 19 Jun. 1975, Bull. Crim. no. 161 and 8 Jan. 1976, Bull. Crim. no. 5). On the other hand, the other condition laid down by the case of 1970, namely that the relationship should clearly be stable, remains. This requirement merely merges into the proof of the reality of the alleged loss. A female concubine can therefore claim indemnification for the death of her lover if she can prove the existence of such mental suffering (because of a loving relationship) and material loss (maintenance and income…..).

Back to top

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