Lhe person moving a large volume cannot unpack all their boxes the same day to check that their belongings are in good condition. However, only the damage that it reports on delivery, on the carrier’s “consignment note”, makes it possible to “to presume” that he is responsible. For those it reports later, it is it who must provide proof of this responsibility, as the following case reminds us.
On January 30, 2019, the company Adam Exploitation (which operates under the Demeco Déménagements Martin brand), took charge of the move of Mme X. The same evening, after a contradictory inspection, this customer noted the following reservations on the consignment note: “Missing vacuum cleaner hose, two large crushed lampshades, deteriorated silverware box (unpackaged, found in the truck), broken dressing table”. The company does not dispute being responsible for the damage to these five objects.
But, as M.me X unpacks her belongings, she finds other damaged objects, which she reports, by emails of February 4 and 8, 2019, accompanied by photographs: these are “two large crushed lampshades” (again), of“pumpkin colored plates broken in half”of“chipped gold embroidered plates”of a “toilet dressing table with a missing mirror”of “two small broken pink and green lamps” and D’“A wax virgin in a gilded wooden frame”.
On January 9, 2019, she indicated by registered letter that a total of twenty-nine objects were damaged. The carrier is surprised that she noticed it so late, when“some of these are bulky furniture, the damage to which is particularly apparent, and for others, fragile or valuable furniture, the condition of which is generally checked immediately”. He estimates that “The additional damage may well be the fault of Mr.me X ».
abusive clause
He offers her 275 euros, as a commercial gesture, and 215 euros for compensation for the first five objects. What she refuses. The Bordeaux court, which she seized, condemned the mover to pay only… 215 euros. So she appeals.
LMay 4, 2023the Bordeaux Court of Appeal recalls that Adam Exploitation is “presumed responsible for the damage on the first five objects. But that for the following, there is “presumption of conforming delivery”. She finds that the client establishes “the materiality of the damage” of the following five objects thanks to photographs taken when the boxes were taken out and the testimony of a third party, Mme Z. And so she brings ” the proof “ of “link of causality » between the damage and the service of the mover“which must therefore repair the consequences”. However, it considers that this is not the case for the following objects.
You have 25.78% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.