The Third Civil Chamber sought to unify the liability regimes for neighborhood disturbances, as it pointed out in the study published in the 1999 annual report. By judgments dated June 30, 1998 and March 24, 1999 , clarified by a judgment dated 22 June 2005 , it affirmed two points which were described in the report of the Court of Cassation of 2005.
It refers to a notion of “occasional neighbor”, which applies to constructors responsible for neighborhood disturbances in their relations with the victims of these disturbances. The Third Civil Chamber uses this notion to extend, in these reports, the responsibility based on the principle that no one should cause trouble to another beyond the normal inconvenience of the neighborhood. As this is a liability as of right, there is no need to characterize the fault.
The Third Civil Chamber in the judgment dated June 22, 2005 recalls that subrogation after payment applies in the relationship between the owner of the building held responsible for nuisances who, as the contracting authority, has the right to recourse action against the manufacturers responsible for the troubles. The Report of the Court of Cassation underlines that “wearing the clothes of the compensated victim, the client is not forced to appeal to the contractual liability of common law of these builders, but can seek them, as he was itself, on the basis of the principle prohibiting disturbance, which does not require the characterization of the fault. “
The Third Civil Chamber by a judgment of October 16, 2002 constituting a decision of principle commented on in the 2002 Report, clarified by a judgment dated March 16, 2005commented on the 2005 Report, affirmed the application of the ten-year prescription to action in contractual liability against manufacturers. If the action in contractual liability brought against the builders can relate to a construction disorder or more generally to the act of building, the limitation period is ten years from the acceptance without reservation. The ten-year prescription is not applicable if contractual liability is sought for non-performance of the clauses of the contract of employment. This is the case, for example, with respect to deadlines or the agreed price.
Liability and Insurance Obligation
Structural damage insurance
The contracting authority having taken out damage insurance for works is entitled to obtain prefinancing of works likely to put an end to construction disorders ( Cass. Civ. 3 December 7, 2005)