The tenant of an old dwelling cannot demand that everything be up to current standards. The absence of railings does not make it non-decent housing, the Court of Cassation ruled. The owner is therefore not held responsible for the accident of the tenant, who fell through a window.
Thus, judged the Court of Cassation, the absence of railings in a building built decades ago is not a defect which would engage the responsibility of its owner vis–vis the tenant in the event of an accident.
This characteristic is apparent, linked to the date of construction, and the tenant can see it when he visits the premises, the judges considered. They thus dismiss the argument of a tenant who had fallen through a window whose lower edge was less than 90 centimeters high and which had no railings.
This tenant maintained that, as a layman in the construction or housing field, he was incapable of noticing the danger. For him, this danger characterized an indecent housing and the owner was therefore responsible for his accident.
But the 2002 decree which requires owners to provide decent housing does not require modernizing old buildings and installing current devices, explained the Court of Cassation. For railings, this decree only requires those that exist to be maintained in a state consistent with their use. The age of the installation therefore does not characterize non-decent housing, observed the Court.
Comparative savings books : 9 offers compare, up 3% yield
Currently, the construction and housing code requires that a guardrail be at least one meter high.
(Cass. Civil 3, 22.6.2022, K 21-10.512).
Reproduction forbidden.