SOS Conso
Can the owners of a dwelling be held responsible for the accident suffered by the person who illegally occupies their property? This paradoxical question arose in connection with the following case: on August 3, 2012, Mme Z, an illegal occupant of a dwelling located on the first floor of a building, leans on the railing of the kitchen window.
It unseals and drags her down, so much so that she is seriously injured. In 2013, she assigned M. and Mme X, owners of the apartment, as well as the company responsible for its management, so that they are ordered to compensate him for his damages (60,000 euros, immediately).
Technical reports having made it possible to establish that the accident was attributable to poor maintenance of the railing (whose irons were damaged by corrosion), and not to a poor state of the facade, the magistrates in charge of the case judge the X responsible: section 1386 (former) of the civil code indeed says that “the owner of a building is responsible for the damage caused by its ruin, when it happened as a result of lack of maintenance”. The judges also criticize the company for not having carried out the necessary checks, and for not having advised their customers to take out specific insurance. They order the Xs and the company to jointly and severally indemnify Mme Z.
Thief or squatter
It is in vain that the latter maintain that the victim “committed a fault”having played a “causal role in causing the damage” : in fact, they explain, she did not leave the premises, as she should have, on March 10, 2010, after a notice had been given to her, following a dispute relating to damage to the waters.
But if she had, “She would not have been the victim of the accident”, they assure. The Paris Court of Appeal disputes, September 10, 2019that there was fault, insofar as the owners have “tolerated” the occupation which lasted two years – during which Mme X continued to pay them the equivalent of rent each month.
Before the Court of Cassation, the Xs maintain that, even “tolerated” by them, this occupation was no less a ” mistake “supposed to exonerate them from their responsibility.
However, the fault of the victim is exempt from liability only if it has a causal relationship “direct” with the damage. Which, judges the Court, on September 15 (2022, 19-26.249), is not the case in this case, since it was the lack of maintenance of the guardrail that directly caused the accident. “The occupation without right or title of real estate by the victim cannot constitute a fault such as to exonerate the owner of the building from his liability, when it is established that the accident suffered by the latter results from the lack of maintenance of the building, she judges, rejecting the appeal of the X.
It therefore matters little whether the person leaning on the failing railing was the holder of the lease or not, whether he was a neighbour, a thief or a squatter: the judgment, severe for the owners, implies that they continue to maintain their accommodation… even if it is not rented in good and due form.