Cour de cassation

The Court:

-- In view of articles 554 and 1382 Code civil; -

Given that the owner’s right to enjoy his property in the most absolute manner not prohibited by law or regulation is subject to his obligation not to cause damage to the property of anyone else which exceeds the normal incommodities of neighbourhood; -

Given that the Court of Appeal dismissed the Vullions’ suit against the Société Vernet Saint-Christophe for compensation in respect of the damage caused to their apartment by its construction of buildings next door, holding that in the absence of any fault proven against the Société Vernet Saint-Christophe it could not be held liable, and that in so deciding although it emerged from correct findings in the judgment that the Société Vernet Saint-Christophe was in breach of its obligation not to cause its neighbour harm exceeding the normal incidents of neighbourhood, the Court of Appeal violated the texts cited above;

For these reasons QUASHES and annuls the decision of the Court of Appeal of Paris on 13 March 1969, and remits the matter to the Court of Appeal of Rheims.

Doctrine upheld
Judgement of 3 August 1915: the abuse of the right of ownership gives rise to a right to damages (articles 544 and 1382 of the Civil Code). However, the damage must be certain and cannot be merely possible: no damages can be allocated on the strength of future loss ensuing from the destruction of these pillars on the basis of a court decision. This doctrine must be compared with the principle set by the following judgement, presented by Advocate-General Lindon as a change of doctrine (Civ.1, 4 February 1971, JCP G no. 16781). According to the latter, these two judgements constitute a change of doctrine to the extent that the owner of a building may be held liable "notwithstanding the absence of fault", this being so "by the mere fact that the works or the finished edifice disturb the neighbour beyond the usually acceptable level when living in close proximity". It is true that a judgement (Civ.1, 23 March 1982, Bull. no. 120) has found such strict liability against a builder whose building had caused the partial collapse of an adjacent building. However, from the viewpoint that interests us here (abuse of the right of ownership giving rise to the right to damages based on tortious or quasi-tortious responsibility) the latter two judgements seem in no way to contradict the judgement of 3 August 1915 but rather, on the contrary, to reinforce it by specifying that "the owner’s right to enjoy his property to the utmost, except in the case of usage forbidden by law or regulations, is limited by his obligation not to cause any damage to a third party’s property exceeding the normal disturbances occurring when people live in close proximity” (first case), and that if “the owner neighbouring the one who is legitimately carrying out construction works on his land is (…) bound to accept the normal inconveniences of living at proximity, on the other hand, he has the right to demand compensation when these inconveniences exceed this limit" (second instance). This doctrine (be it the 1915 judgement or the two judgements of 1971) is in any case upheld: see more particularly Civ.2, 19 February 1992, no. 60: "A judgement is not legally justified if, in order to nonsuit a party suing for compensation on the grounds that the works undertaken by his neighbour on the latter's own land have caused him damage, it holds that the plaintiff did not establish that the workers carrying out the works were under his neighbour's orders or that the latter had personally managed them, without investigating whether the presence on the site of the construction companies had [perhaps] been the cause of the inconvenience exceeding the level acceptable in a neighbourhood".

Back to top

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