In view of article 1384 Code civil:

Given, according to the decision under attack, that on 19 March 1991 M. Cassagne was awarded damages against the commune as gardien of the cliff from which in 1980 and again in 1982 rocks had fallen on to the villa he had built on property acquired in 1964, those damages being for the physical damage to his property, subject to a reduction of half by reason of his own negligence, and now sues the commune again for the depreciation in value of his villa;

Given that the decision below rejected this claim on the ground that the depreciation of the property was simply the consequence of the risk inherent in the lie of the land, the falls of rock being simply the manifestation of this continuing risk, which M. Cassagne should have realised when he bought the land;

But given that since this risk was actualised by the falls of rock in 1980 and 1982 and that M. Cassagne was seeking compensation for the depreciation of his property since those dates, the Court of Appeal did not draw the correct conclusions in law from its findings of fact and thus violated the text cited above;

For these reasons QUASHES and ANNULS the decision of the Court of Appeal on 24 February 1993, but only in so far as it dismissed the claim of M. Cassagne for the depreciation of his property, and remits the case to the Court of Appeal of Lyons.

Civ 2, 17 May 1995: The lower courts have, since the beginning of the 1960s acknowledged the concept of reparation for detriment resulting not from loss, destruction or deterioration of property (movable or immovable), but merely from depreciation in its value. The Cour de cassation recognised this principle by a judgment of the second civil chamber of the 6th October 1966. This principle has been accepted since by constant case law (cf particularly Civ 2, 26 September 2002, Bull no 198, given in comparable circumstances).

Translation by Raymond Youngs

Back to top

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