LexInter | October 15, 2009 | 0 Comments



On the single means taken in its two branches:
Having regard to article 1382 of the Civil Code;
Whereas, according to the judgment under appeal, that, during the study, in a college, the minor Nicolas Y …, who amused himself by typing with a ruler on objects belonging to his comrades, was preparing to strike on the calculator of the minor Hervé X … when the latter seized the end of the rule which, by breaking, injured him; that the spouses X … requested compensation for the damage of the minor to the spouses Y … and the University mutual insurance; that the primary health insurance fund of Haute-Savoie intervened at the instance;
Whereas, to declare the victim partly responsible for his damage, the judgment retains that the latter, wanting to prevent his comrade from typing on his calculator with his ruler, intervened, took a sudden gesture of this rule and broke it, so that a shard hit his eye;
That by determining itself thus, while it held that the intervention of the victim had for origin the behavior of Nicolas Y … who had undertaken to type without reason on objects belonging to his comrades, the court of appeal , which did not characterize the fault of the victim, did not give a legal basis for its decision;
BREAK AND CANCELED, in all its provisions, the judgment rendered on April 18, 1991, between the parties, by the Chambéry 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 Besançon 

Publication: Bulletin 1992 II N ° 305 p. 151
Contested decision: Court of Appeal of Chambéry, 1991-04-18

Court of Cassation
Civil Chamber 2

Public hearing of November 8, 1989 Cassation.

N ° of appeal: 87-20184
Published in the bulletin

President: M. Aubouin
Rapporteur: M. Burgelin
Advocate General: M. Ortolland
Avocats: M. Ryziger, SCP Lyon-Caen, Fabiani and Liard.


On the first plea, taken in its second branch:
Having regard to article 1382 of the Civil Code;
Whereas, according to the contested nursing judgment, following two broadcasts of the television series “Right of reply”, broadcast on TF1 and devoted to the urban mutual bet, Mr. Jean Romanet, general manager of the Encouragement Society for the improvement of horse breeds in France, which had participated in the first of them as a guest, considered that their animator, Mr. Michel Polac, had committed faults in his regard engaging his responsibility and the ‘sued for damages;
Whereas, in order to reject Mr. Romanet’s request, the Court of Appeal, after noting that the behavior which he accuses of Mr. Polac, and the reality of which is not questionable, would have been of such a nature as to constitute a fault – a journalist having, in all circumstances, even when giving his critical opinion, to show circumspection and objectivity – if he had manifested himself during a classic news program or a traditional debate, retains that Mr. Polac did not commit any fault because of the specificity of the emission, consisting in using a polemical tone so as to give to the debate a spectacular character;
That in ruling thus the court of appeal, which retains however that the essential aim of the emission was to enlighten the televiewer on the important and serious questions which were raised, did not draw the legal consequences of its findings;
FOR THESE REASONS, without there being any need to rule on the other branches of the plea and on the second plea:
BREAK AND ANNUL, in all its provisions, the judgment delivered on October 6, 1987, between the parties, by the Paris Court of Appeal; returns, accordingly, the case and the parties to the state they were in before the said judgment and, to be upheld, returns them to the Versailles Court of Appeal


Publication: Bulletin 1989 II N ° 204 p. 105
Contested decision: Paris Court of Appeal, 1987-10-06


Court of Cassation
Civil Chamber

Public hearing of February 28, 1910 BREAKING

Published in the newsletter



CASSATION, on the appeal of Nourrigat Aurélien, of a judgment rendered on May 10, 1906, by the Court of Appeal of Algiers, in favor of Pech.

From February 28, 1910.
Hear, in open court today, Councilor Douarche, in his report; Maîtres Clément and Mayer, lawyers for the parties, in their respective observations, as well as M. Melcot, Advocate General, in his conclusions;
And after having deliberated in accordance with the law in the council chamber;
On the two combined means:
Having regard to articles 1382 and 1384 of the Civil Code;
Whereas if the courts sovereignly ascertain the facts, it is up to the Court of Cassation to assess whether the observed facts present the legal character of the fault provided for by law and engage the responsibility of their authors;
Whereas the contested judgment declares, in fact, that Nourrigat, agricultural worker in the service of Pech, was driving a machine to sulfur the vines, whose gear was not covered by a protective device; that he stopped to give explanations to the manager of the farm; and that the native charged with directing the team suddenly sent off the animals which dragged the machine; that Nourrigat then wanted to re-enter the guides he had let slip, and that his right hand was caught in the gear which cut him three
Whereas the Court of Appeal rejected the claim for damages on the grounds that Nourrigat had been the victim of his own imprudence;
But whereas the findings set out above imply to the load of Pech the existence of a fault which contributed to cause the accident; that the imprudence of the victim could not therefore exonerate Pech of any responsibility;
Whereas, therefore, by ruling as it did, the contested judgment disregarded the legal consequences of the facts noted by it and consequently violated the texts referred to above:
For these reasons, CASSE,
Avatar of LexInter


Lexinter Law, with a team of dedicated authors who strive to provide you with all the relevant and actionable tips on the legal aspect of your life. Our goal is to educate you so that you can make legal action with ease, or find the right person who can help you with your unique personal legal dilemma. Take care!