Cour de cassation

The court:

Given that according to the judgment under attack (Nîmes, 8 December 1997) Portal was struck in the face by Rouis’s elbow during a friendly football match and lost several teeth,

Given that P. criticises the judgment for having dismissed his claim for damages against Rouis and his insurer, the compagnie Rhin et Moselle Groupe Allianz, whereas, according to his application for review: “First, everyone is liable for the damage he causes not only by his own act but also by his negligence and imprudence; that in refusing to hold Rouis liable on the ground that it was by clumsiness and not by faulty breach of the rules of the game that he struck Portal, the Court of Appeal did not draw the correct legal conclusions from its findings and thus violated articles 1382 and 1383 Code civil; Secondly, in any case those who participate in a team sport are taken to accept only the normal risks inherent in it, and in this case Rouis’s faulty clumsiness in striking Portal with his elbow and causing the loss of several teeth was beyond the normal risks of the game; in deciding otherwise and requiring the victim to establish that the defendant’s fault was intentional or grave the Court of Appeal violated articles 1382 and 1383 Code civil.”

But given that the judgment states that the injury occurred in the course of a football match, that it emerges from the evidence that though Rouis was clumsy, he was neither aggressive nor malicious and that there was no breach of the rules of the game or of good sportsmanship, and that from these statements and conclusions the Court of Appeal has correctly inferred that R. had to be exonerated from all liability;

From which it follows that the ground of application for review is unfounded;

For these reasons, DISMISSES the application.

Civ. 2, 16.11.2000, Bull. no. 151: “Having found that injury suffered by a player who had been elbowed in the face during a friendly football match was due to clumsiness by another player, who showed no aggression or ill will, and that no breach of the rules or of the fair play inherent in the practice of a sport had been committed, a Court of Appeal correctly conclude that the second player must be exonerated from all liability”.

No later decision of the Court of Cassation has confirmed or contradicted this doctrine, which can nevertheless be considered to be still applicable. (Cf. Civ. 2, 3 July 1991, Bull. no. 210 – 5 December, 1990, Bull. 258 – 4May 1988, Bull no. 106 – 28 January, 1987, Bull. no.32 – 22 June, 1983, Bull. no 135 – 21 June, 1979, Bull. no. 196 – 15 May 1972, Bull. no .149).

Back to top

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