Case:
D. 1984, 525 Case Fullenwarth v. Felten Subsequent developments
Date:
09 May 1984
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 (Metz, 25 September 1979) Pascal Fullenwarth, then aged seven, shot in the direction of his friend David Felten an arrow from a bow he himself had made and put out his eye, and that M. Felten, David's father, claimed damages from M. Raymond Fullenwarth as being civilly responsible for his son Pascal under article 1384(4) Code civil;

Given that M. Raymond Fullenwarth criticises the judgment for having held him wholly liable for the consequences whereas, according to the him, the Court of Appeal should have asked whether Pascal had sufficient discernment for his act to be imputed to him as a fault and its failure to do so rendered its decision without legal basis and violated articles 1382 and 1384(4) Code civil;

But given that in order for the parents of a minor child living with them to be presumed liable under article 1384(4) Code civil, it is sufficient that the child have committed an act which is the direct cause of the damage complained of and that for this reason of pure law, rather than the reason criticised, the judgment is correct in law;

For these reasons DISMISSES the application for review.

Doctrine maintained: cf. Civ. 2, 10 May 2001 (Bull. no 96) which states: “The strict liability incumbent upon a mother and father pursuant to Article 1384, paras. 4 and 7, of the Civil Code by reason of loss caused by their infant child living with them does not depend on the existence of a wrong committed by the infant” and Civ. 2, 13 April 1992, Bull. no. 122: “In order to establish, pursuant to Article 1384, para. 4, of the Civil Code, the presumption of liability of the father and mother of an infant who lives with them, it is necessary that the latter be found to have done something which is the direct cause of the loss alleged by the victim; this is not the case where an infant alleged to have been one of those responsible for the loss warned several times his guests against the dangerous nature of the arm with which the victim wounded himself”.

 

Back to top

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