- Case:
- Bull Civ II n° 44 Case Epoux X. v. Mutuelle générale de l’Education nationale Subsequent developments
- Date:
- 09 March 2000
- 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
The Court:
Given that according to the judgment under attack Arnaud X., nine years old, who had been sent by his parents in July to a medico-educational center run by the Mutuelle générale de l’Education nationale (MGEN), was struck in the eye by a pencil by his fellow-inmate Vincent Y., and that A.’s parents sued MGEN and V.’s father and mother and their insurer, la Mutuelle accident élève (MAE);
In view of article 1384 (4) and (7) Code civil;
Given that only force majeure and the fault of the victim can exonerate the father and mother from liability for the damage done by a resident minor child;
Given that the judgment below dismissed the claim against M. and Mme Y. on the basis that having entrusted their child to a center managed by MGEN they could not have prevented the damage;
But given that in so deciding when only proof of force majeure or fault of the victim could exonerate M. and Mme Y. from legal liability for the damage due to their minor child and the child’s cohabitation with his parents was not terminated by their entrusting him to a medico-educational center, the Court of Appeal has violated the text cited;
For these reasons QUASHES the decision below…
Civ. 2, 20 January, 2000, Bull. no. 14: “Cohabitation of an infant with his father and mother pursuant to Article 1384, para. 4 of the Civil Code results from the child’s residing habitually in the home of the parents or of one of them” and Civ. 2, 09.03.2000, Bull. no. 44: “There is a breach of Article 1384, paras. 4 and 7 if a Court of Appeal holds that, their son having been left with a child-care centre with medical facilities at the time of an accident, the parents could not prevent the acts which caused loss, since only proof of a case of force majeure or a fault by the victim could relive the father and mother of their strict liability arising out of damage caused by their infant child living with them, and the fact that they had temporarily left the child with that centre did not cause the cessation of the cohabitation of the child with his parents”.
This page last updated Thursday, 15-Dec-2005 09:05:51 CST. Copyright 2007. All rights reserved.