Falling off a roof onto a car is not having a traffic accident
[ad_1]
LPedestrians, cyclists and car passengers who are victims of traffic accidents involving an automobile have benefited from better compensation since the entry into force of the law of July 5, 1985known as the Badinter law.
They also benefit from favorable case law from the Court of Cassation, which qualifies as” circulation accident “ any claim resulting from contact with the automobile, even if the latter is stationary or if it is in a private garage.
Under this case law, should the fall of a person who falls from a roof and lands on a car parked in a garage be considered a ” circulation accident “ ? A priori absurd, this question seriously divided the magistrates called upon to rule on the following case.
On April 16, 2015, a 38-year-old handyman, Mr. Y, climbed onto the roof of his garage to do some repairs. He stumbles through the skylight of his neighbour’s garage, Mr. X, and lands on his car, which is locked there. He was rushed to the hospital, which diagnosed, in particular, a fracture of the left ankle. He is operated and must stop working for forty-five days.
BPCE, Mr. Y’s insurer, contacts GMF, MX’s insurer. It obtains the payment of a provision of 2,000 euros as well as a contradictory amicable expert report. The experts estimating, on April 21, 2016, that the “permanent functional deficit [de M. Y] will not be less than 10%”he is claiming an additional provision of 20,000 euros from the GMF, to be applied to his final compensation.
As the GMF refuses to pay it to him, he summons it before the tribunal de grande instance of Paris, invoking the law Badinter (“aiming at improving the situation of victims of traffic accidents and accelerating compensation procedures”). He claims he was the victim of a ” circulation accident in which Mr. X’s vehicle is ” involved “ and asks for compensation “completely” of his damage.
Provision of 12,000 euros
The GMF argues, unsuccessfully, that Mr. Y “was not the victim of a traffic accident”, but from a domestic accident“the fall of a roof », which excludes the application of the Badinter law. She notes that he would have been injured even if Mr. X’s car had not been there, and that he had landed on the ground. She specifies that her accident is unrelated to the “displacement function of the vehicle, which was “parked in a closed and private place”, and who only “found on [sa] trajectory ».
The court found her wrong on June 8, 2018. He ordered her to pay a new provision of 12,000 euros and ordered a medical expertise. The Paris Court of Appeal, seized by the GMF, confirms this judgment, November 9, 2020. It considers that the provisions of the Badinter law ” are intended to apply, including when the vehicle involved is parked in a private garage.. Indeed, she says“the parking of a motorized land vehicle constitutes as such an act of circulation”.
The GMF is appealing in cassation. His lawyer, Mr.e Jérôme Rousseau, affirms, in view of the preparatory work for the 1985 law, that the appeal magistrates went beyond the intention of the legislator, by judging that an accident occurring in a place “strictly private” such as a garage could be called a traffic accident. He asks the Court to waive extending the scope of the Badinter law to any accident, even domestic, in which a vehicle played only a passive role.
The appeal gave rise to heated debates, within the second civil chamber of the Court of Cassation, meeting in training of ten magistrates, instead of the usual three. The Advocate General (who does not vote) proposes to reject it, even if, he concedes, ” intuitively, it is difficult to convince oneself that [l’accident de M. Y. est] a traffic accident”.
He considers that M.e Rousseau invites the Court to abandon a ” consistent case law”, according to which “it is enough that a collision takes place with a vehicle so that the implication of this one is characterized”. However, replacing this notion of“involvement” (the fact of being involved in an accident, even if one has not committed any fault) by that of “causality would be less victim-friendly.
The majority does not follow it, since the Court judges, on July 7 (2022, 21-10.945)that the accident resulting from a fall ” on a vehicle parked in a private garage”, while“none of the items related to the displacement function” of the latter is none ” originally “not does not constitute a traffic accident. The parties are referred to another formation of the Paris Court of Appeal. Who, sticking to a less extensive conception of the traffic accident, should reject the requests made by Mr. Y to the GMF.
[ad_2]
Source link
