Country:
France
Court:
Cour de cassation, Civ. 1re, 18 July 1972, pourvoi n° 70-10.870; Bull. civ. I, no. 189, p. 164
Topics:
Necessity of proof of a specific professional negligence
Liability resulting from repairs of a vehicle
Articles:
Facts:
A truck belonging to Veuve Leine and driven by one of its employees collided with a truck belonging to the Gleizal company. After having paid damages and reparations, Le Nord, Veuve Leine's insurance company brought an action by way of subrogation on behalf of Gleizal and sued on the one hand Lockeed , the producers of truck's brakes system and its insurer, and on the other hand Lorin - Vehicules Industriels for alleged negligence in the reparation of the system to which the defective element was incorporated. The Court of Appeal rejected both claims.
Legal questions:
(1) What is needed to establish liability of the producer?
(2) Was the Court of Appeal justified in rejecting the claim against the repairer on the basis that the claimant did not allege that the repairer did not use the specific technique required to find the defect?
Decisions:
(1) There is no need to prove a specific act of professional negligence by the producer. The mere delivery and marketing of the defective brake system is sufficient to establish fault on the part of the manufacturer.
(2) No. The Court of Appeal distorted the arguments of the plaintiff and violated art. 1384 CC. Since several verifications had been undertaken before the accident it was possible to affirm that a serious control had not been performed.
Comments:
This case can be seen as illustrating the rather different understanding of fault which the French case law has developed. Under art.1382 CC proof of fault is a condition for liability. However the Cour de Cassation has adopted a wide conception of fault. It is not just the producer's behaviour that is analysed; simple proof of delivery is enough.
So, initially requiring proof of fault on the part of the defendant, the French courts have now shifted the focus of analysis from the producer's behaviour to the product itself, merely requiring the proof of delivery of a defective product: 'delivery of a defective product is sufficient to establish fault on the part of the manufacturer or the distributor.'
