HASAs surprising as it may seem, a co-ownership can be ordered to compensate a person who fell from a low wall because of… a dog, as the following case shows.
On August 9, 2014, Mme Y visits a friend, Mr. X, then takes his dog, Tiloup, out for the first time. When she sits on a low wall – or leans on it, the facts being unclear on this point – Tiloup jumps on her. He causes her to tip backwards and fall three meters below, into a narrow passage leading to the cellars of a building.
The dramatic accident leaves Mme Y paraplegic. As compensation for its consequences is ultimately estimated at 1.8 million euros, Mr. X’s insurance, Pacifica, does not want to play a role. It calls into question the responsibility of the owner of the low wall: a co-ownership, insured by Allianz. Which, just like Pacifica, refuses to pay. She denounces the “recklessness” of the victim who, according to her, should not have ” sit “ on the wall.
The Paris judicial court, which Mme Seizes Y, judge Mr. “fully responsible » damage caused by his animal, and orders Pacifica alone to pay a provision of 30,000 euros. But the latter appeals, and obtains, June 22, 2023, a sharing of responsibilities. The Paris Court of Appeal certainly confirms the “causal role” of the dog in the accident. It exonerates the victim from any ” mistake “, judging that she “did not know the habits” of the animal, in particular that of “climb where his master sits”.
At least one meter
But the magistrates noted that the low wall, a common part of the co-ownership, was a “work to protect people against the risks of accidental falling into space”. And what to this title, he had to comply with the provisions relating to guardrails provided for by the standard NF P 01-012 : when they are “thin” (width less than 20 centimeters), they must measure at least ” 1 meter “.
However, although the wall was only 17 centimeters wide, its height was 0.72 meters at the place of the fall. The court of appeal judges that this “abnormality » also played a role “causal” in the damage suffered by Mme Y. It retains the responsibility of the union under the principle according to which “we are responsible for the damage” caused by the fact “things that we have in our custody” (article 1242 of the civil code). But also for lack of “bringing the wall into conformity” to standards, that is to say for ” mistake ” (article 1240 of the civil code).
You have 25.01% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.