JUDGMENT FULLY PUBLISHED
LexInter | August 25, 2002 | 0 Comments

JUDGMENT FULLY PUBLISHED

JUDGMENT FULLY PUBLISHED
Judgments of July 19, 2001 issued by the social chamber

SOCIAL SECURITY, WORKPLACE ACCIDENT . –

Accountability. – Evidence. – Presumption of imputation. – Application domain. – Employee on mission.

The employee, victim of an accident during an assignment, is entitled to the protection provided for by article L. 411-1 of the Social Security Code during the entire time of the assignment that he performs for his employer. , it does not matter whether the accident occurs during a professional act or an act of everyday life, except for the possibility for the employer or the Fund to provide proof that the employee had interrupted the assignment for a personal reason (judgments nos 1 and 2).

Legally justifies its decision the Court of Appeal which retains the existence of an industrial accident after having noted, by a sovereign assessment of the facts, that the employer did not provide proof or that the employee had interrupted his mission for a personal reason, at the time of the accident, or because the death had a cause totally unrelated to work (stop n ° 1).

On the other hand violates this provision the Court of Appeal which, while noting that the death had occurred during the employee’s assignment, decides that he cannot be covered under professional legislation on the grounds that he was which occurred during the performance of an act of everyday life and that proof of a direct relationship with working conditions had not been established (judgment n ° 2).

Stop n ° 1:

THE COURTYARD,

On the single means, taken in its three branches:

Whereas, on March 14, 1996, at 8 a.m., Loïc Gicquiaux, an engineer employed by the company Framatome, who was on a mission in Zizong (People’s Republic of China), was the victim in his hotel room of cerebral hemorrhage from which he died on March 18, 1996 at the local hospital; that the primary health insurance fund refused to take charge of this death under professional legislation; that the Court of Appeal (Dijon, October 19, 1999) allowed the appeal of Mrs. Gicquiaux;

Whereas the company Framatome criticizes the judgment under appeal for having thus ruled, then, according to the means:

1 ° / that the employee on assignment benefits from the presumption of imputability of the accident at work except to demonstrate that the accident occurred at a time and in a place where the employee, recovering his independence, was no longer under instructions from the employer; in the present case, it appeared from the investigation report established by the primary health insurance fund on December 4, 1996 that Loïc Gicquiaux had been found unconscious in the bathroom of his hotel room at 8 o’clock in the morning ; that this investigation report mentioned that the employee had a local located in the Chinese factory to carry out his work; that, in its conclusions of appeal, the company Framatome argued that, with regard to the third consecutive mission of Loïc Gicquiaux during the year in Zizong in China, all the preparation work had already been done, so that Loïc Gicquiaux had no work to do in his hotel room; that by contenting himself therefore with affirming, in order to judge that Loïc Gicquiaux was in the exercise of his mission at the time of the occurrence of his accident, that the nature of the employee’s mission forced him to work in his room. hotel to prepare its interventions, without in any way justifying this finding by specific and concrete fact and evidence, the court of appeal deprived its decision of legal basis with regard to article L.411-1 of the French Code of social Security ; had no work to do in his hotel room; that by contenting himself therefore with affirming, in order to judge that Loïc Gicquiaux was in the exercise of his mission at the time of the occurrence of his accident, that the nature of the employee’s mission forced him to work in his room. hotel to prepare its interventions, without in any way justifying this finding by specific and concrete fact and evidence, the court of appeal deprived its decision of legal basis with regard to article L.411-1 of the French Code of social Security ; had no work to do in his hotel room; that by contenting himself therefore with affirming, in order to judge that Loïc Gicquiaux was in the exercise of his mission at the time of the occurrence of his accident, that the nature of the employee’s mission forced him to work in his room. hotel to prepare its interventions, without in any way justifying this finding by specific and concrete fact and evidence, the court of appeal deprived its decision of legal basis with regard to article L.411-1 of the French Code of social Security ;

2 ° / that the employee on mission who takes his breakfast and returns to his bathroom before going to his place of work has interrupted his mission by a purely personal activity and is no longer under the subordination of his employer; in the present case, it resulted from the exhibits paid to the debates that the accident had occurred in the bathroom of Loïc Gicquiaux after he had taken his breakfast; that by affirming therefore that the employee was in the exercise of his mission, without investigating whether it had not been interrupted by the taking by the employee of his breakfast and his activity in the bathroom of his hotel room, the court of appeal deprived his decision of legal basis with regard to article L.411-1 of the Code of social security;

3 ° / by peremptorily affirming, to confirm its decision, that the state of hypertension at the origin of the accident was necessarily linked to the conditions of execution of the mission in China and, therefore, had a link with the professional activity, without specifying in any way on what elements of fact and evidence it was based to arrive at such an assertion, the court of appeal again deprived its decision of legal basis with regard to article L.411 -1 of the Social Security Code;

But given that the employee carrying out an assignment is entitled to the protection provided for by article L.411-1 of the Social Security Code during the entire time of the assignment that he performs for his employer, regardless of the accident occurs during a professional act or an act of everyday life, except for the possibility for the employer or the Fund to provide proof that the employee had interrupted his mission for a personal reason;

And whereas in considering, in the exercise of his sovereign power of appreciation of the facts submitted to it, that the company Framatome did not provide proof that at the time of his accident, Loïc Gicquiaux had interrupted his mission for a personal reason or that the injury from which he died had a cause totally unrelated to work, the court of appeal legally justified its decision;

FOR THESE REASONS :

DISMISSES the appeal;

Stop n ° 2

99-20.603
Judgment n ° 4126 of July 19, 2001
Cour de cassation – Social Chamber
Cassation

Cassation
plaintiff (s) : Ms. Monique Salomon Cassation defendant (s): CPAM de Lyon and others

On the plea noted ex officio, after observing the formalities provided for in article 1015 of the new Code of Civil Procedure:

Having regard to article L. 411-1 of the Social Security Code;

Whereas Patrick Salomon, sent, for a mission of several days, to Paris, in order to carry out the delivery and the installation of furniture to various customers, was found dead, on December 22, 1995, in the room hotel where he stayed after his day’s work; that the primary health insurance fund refused to cover the death under the legislation on accidents at work; that Ms. Salomon appealed against this decision;

Whereas, to decide that the accident could not be covered under the legislation on occupational risks, the judgment holds that the death occurred outside of the employee’s working hours, during the accomplishment of ‘an act of everyday life, and that proof of a direct relationship between the death and working conditions of Patrick Salomon on December 21, 1995 has not been established;

Whereas, however, the employee, carrying out an assignment, is entitled to the protection provided for by Article
L. 411-1 of the Social Security Code during the entire time of the assignment that he performs for his employer, regardless of whether accident occurs during a professional act or an act of everyday life, except for the possibility for the employer or the Fund to provide proof that the employee had interrupted his mission for a personal reason;

That by ruling as it did, after noting that the death had occurred during the mission, which resulted in the presumption of accountability for work being established, the court of appeal violated the aforementioned text ;

FOR THESE REASONS, and without there being any need to rule on the single ground of appeal:

BREAK AND CANCELED, in all its provisions, the judgment rendered on September 14, 1999, between the parties, by the Lyon Court of Appeal; returns, consequently, the cause and the parts in the state where they were before the aforementioned judgment and, to be done right, returns them before the court of appeal of Dijon;

Soc, July 19, 2001, Bull n ° 285, N ° 99-21-536

  On the sole means, taken in its three branches

 Whereas, on March 14, 1996, at 8 a.m., Loïc Gicquiaux, an engineer employed by the company Framatome, who was on a mission in Zizong (People’s Republic of China), was the victim in his hotel room of cerebral hemorrhage from which he died on March 18, 1996 in the local hospital; that the primary health insurance fund refused to take charge of this death under professional legislation; that the Court of Appeal (Dijon, October 19, 1999) allowed the appeal of Mrs. Gicquiaux;

 Whereas the company Framatome criticizes the judgment under appeal for having thus ruled, then, according to the plea

 1 ° that the employee on assignment benefits from the presumption of imputability of the industrial accident, except to demonstrate that the accident occurred at a time and in a place where the employee, recovering his independence, was no longer under the instructions from the employer; in the present case, it appeared from the investigation report established by the primary health insurance fund on December 4, 1996 that LoW Gicquiaux had been found unconscious in the bathroom of his hotel room at 8 o’clock in the morning ; that this investigation report mentioned that the employee had a local located in the Chinese factory to carry out his work; that, in its conclusions of appeal, the company Framatome argued that, with regard to the third consecutive mission of Loic Cicquiaux during the year in Zizong in China, all the preparation work had already been done, so that Loic Gicquiaux had no work to do in his hotel room; that by therefore contenting himself with stating, in order to judge that Loic Gicquiaux was in the exercise of his mission at the time of the occurrence of his accident, that the nature of the employee’s mission forced him to work in his room. hotel to prepare its interventions, without in any way justifying this finding by specific and concrete factual and evidence, the Court of Appeal deprived its decision of legal basis with regard to Article L. 411-1 of the French Code of social Security ; had no work to do in his hotel room; that by therefore contenting himself with stating, in order to judge that Loic Gicquiaux was in the exercise of his mission at the time of the occurrence of his accident, that the nature of the employee’s mission forced him to work in his room. hotel to prepare its interventions, without in any way justifying this finding with precise and concrete facts and evidence, the Court of Appeal deprived its decision of legal basis with regard to Article L. 411-1 of the Code of social Security ; had no work to do in his hotel room; that by therefore contenting himself with stating, in order to judge that Loic Gicquiaux was in the exercise of his mission at the time of the occurrence of his accident, that the nature of the employee’s mission forced him to work in his room. hotel to prepare its interventions, without in any way justifying this finding with precise and concrete facts and evidence, the Court of Appeal deprived its decision of legal basis with regard to Article L. 411-1 of the Code of social Security ;

2 ° that the employee on mission who takes his breakfast and returns to his bathroom before going to his place of work has interrupted his mission by a purely personal activity and is no longer under the subordination of his employer; in the present case, it resulted from the exhibits poured into the proceedings that the accident had occurred in the bathroom of Loic Cicquiaux after he had taken his breakfast; that by affirming therefore that the employee was in the exercise of his mission, without investigating whether it had not been interrupted by the taking by the employee of his breakfast and his activity in the bathroom of his hotel room, the Court of Appeal deprived his decision of legal basis with regard to Article L. 411-1 of the Social Security Code;

3 ° that by peremptorily arming, to confirm its decision, that the state of hypertension at the origin of the accident was necessarily linked to the conditions of execution of the mission in China and, therefore, had a link with professional activity, without specifying in any way what elements of fact and evidence it was based on to arrive at such an assertion, the Court of Appeal again deprived its decision of legal basis with regard to Article L. 411- I of the Social Security Code;

But given that the employee carrying out an assignment is entitled to the protection provided for by article L.411-1 of the Social Security Code during the entire time of the assignment that he performs for his employer, regardless of the accident occurs during a professional act or an act of everyday life, except for the possibility for the employer or the Fund to provide proof that the employee had interrupted his mission for a personal reason;

 And whereas in considering, in the exercise of his sovereign power of appreciation of the facts submitted to it, that the company Framatome did not provide proof that at the time of his accident, Loïc Gicquiaux had interrupted his mission for a personal reason or that the injury from which he died had a cause totally unrelated to work, the court of appeal legally justified its decision;

FOR THESE REASONS

DISMISSES the appeal.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.


CAPTCHA Image
Reload Image