Cour de Cassation — Tort Law — Responsibility for the conduct of others — Children: Responsibility of father and mother
| Date | Citation | Note |
|---|---|---|
| 09.03.2000 | Bull Civ II n° 44 Case Epoux X. v. Mutuelle générale de l’Education nationale Subsequent developments |
“It is a breach of the provisions of article 1384, paras. 4 and 7, of the Civil Code for a court of appeal to hold that, having entrusted their son to a medical and teaching centre at the time of the accident, the parents could not prevent the loss-causing event, for only proof of a case of ‘force majeure’ or of a fault by the person suffering damage could exonerate the father and mother from absolute liability for damage caused by their infant child who lived with them The fact that they had temporarily entrusted him to this centre did not bring to an end the cohabitation of the child with his parents” |
| 20.01.2000 | Bull n° 14 Case X. v. Parisot Subsequent developments |
“The cohabitation of a child with his father and mother set out in Article 1384 para 4 of the Civil Code results from the habitual residence of the child at the home of the parents or of one of them” |
| 19.02.1997 | D. 1997, 265 Case Bertrand v. Domingues Subsequent developments |
“Once a court of appeal had correctly held that only ‘force majeure’ or the fault of the person suffering damage could discharge a father from the absolute liability for damage caused by his infant child living with him, it had no obligation to enquire into a failure of supervision by the father” |
| 04.07.1995 | Bull. Civ. 1995 I no. 302 p. 211 93-18.430 Case Garage Blandan-Buffoli v. Point Subsequent developments |
|
| 28.06.1995 | Bull. Civ. 1995 III no. 162 p. 109 93-17.379 Case Platres Lambert v. Basso-Sud Villas Subsequent developments |
|
| 09.05.1984 | D. 1984, 525 Case Fullenwarth v. Felten Subsequent developments |
In order that there may be a presumption, on the basis of article 1384 para 4 of the Civil Code, of the libility of the father and mother of an infant living with them, it is sufficient that the latter has done something which is the direct cause of the damage alleged by the victim Consequently,a father cannot criticise a judgement for having held him entirely liable for damage caused by his infant child, without having enquired whether the latter was sufficiently aware for the event to be held against him |