Case:
Bull.civ. 1980 III no. 206 Case SCI Lacouture v. Entreprises Caceres
Date:
08 December 1981
Translated by:
Tony Weir
Copyright:
Professor B. S. Markesinis

Given that the judgment under attack (Lyon, 23 April 1980) found that when the Lacouture Company was having a condominium constructed in 1968 in association with the architect Marin and the Entreprises Caceres [and others] cracks appeared in the walls, the garages were flooded and a water pipe was broken, in respect of which the co-owners sued Lacouture and its director, who sought an indemnityfrom Entreprises Caceres [and others];

Given that Lacouture criticises the judgment for holding it liable for one-third of the repair costs and damages due to the rupture of the water-pipe whereas,according to the complaint, “architects and contractors are liable forthe whole of the damage due to their shortcomings unless they can establish anexcuse such as force majeure or the act of a third party with the necessary characteristics” andthat it was therefore inconsistent with article 1147 Code civil for the courtof appeal, which had itself found the architect and main contractor to be inbreach, to put any part of the responsibility on to the shoulders of the complainant,who was not shown to have been at fault in any way;

But given that, in dealing with Lacouture’s claim for indemnity, the court of appeal found that it had permitted heavily-laden trucks to be driven through the premises under construction and in holding that the architect Marin and the Entreprises Caceres should contribute only one third each to Lacouture was in the exercise of its sovereign powers to decide the extent to which each party was liable for the damage due to the rupture of the water pipe, From which it follows that the criticism is baseless;

On the second and third grounds put forward in the supplementary memorandum:

Given that this ground of application must be rejected because, under cover of insubstantial complaints of lack of legal basis, it merely seeks to reopen in front of the Court of Cassation a discussion of the facts and the extent of the damage as conclusively found by the judges of fact below;

For these reasons DISMISSES the application for review of the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Lyons of 23 April 1980.

Subsequent Developments

This note on subsequent developments reflects the legal situation as of October 2005.

Civ 3, 8 December 1981, Bull no 206 : Case law maintained, See in particular, with regard to contractual liability, Civ 1, 16 July 1991, Bull no 249: "The existence and scope of the prejudice coming within the sovereign powers of appreciation of the judges of the lower courts, a court of appeal which states that the sum allocated by it constitutes reparation for all the prejudice relied on has necessarily considered that the faults accepted thus found their reparation". Later judgments have incidentally reaffirmed this solution (cf Civ 1, 13 November 2002, Bull no 265: "The breach of an obligation to provide information which falls on the practitioner can only be subject to imposition of a sanction in so far as prejudice results from it the existence of which is confirmed by the judges of the lower courts in the exercise of their sovereign powers of appreciation").

Translation by Raymond Youngs

Back to top

This page last updated Thursday, 15-Dec-2005 09:05:51 CST. Copyright 2007. All rights reserved.