Cour de cassation

The Court:

Given that according the decision under attack, which confirmed the decision at first instance, there was a collision in town between a vehicle owned by Flévet and driven by his employee, Copin, in which Ponthieu, another of Flévet’s employees, was travelling, and a vehicle driven by its owner, Gueffier, which crossed its path; given that Ponthieu claimed compensation for his injuries from Gueffier under articles 1382 and 1384(1) Code civil, and brought the caisse primaire of the Sécurité sociale into the suit;

Given that Gueffier criticises the judgment for holding him solely liable for the accident under article 1384, whereas, the cause of the accident being unknown, it is to be presumed that the two vehicles contributed equally to the damage, and contends that he should be held liable only for his own part because Ponthieu, being at work when he was injured, could not claim full damages or sue his employer under article 1384(1) and in consequence neither could he, Gueffier, who would thus be deprived of recourse against the other party liable for causing the harm;

But given, first, that the facts underlying the accident are uncertain, and Gueffier has not proved that he was exonerated by any cause, and secondly, that where more than one person is liable for harm, each of them, having contributed to causing it all, is liable for it all, regardless of any question of his recourse against the other; that for this reason of pure law, rather than the reasons given below, the decision criticised is justified in law;

For these reasons DISMISSES the application for review.

Subsequent Developments

1) Doctrine upheld: cf. Civ.2, 12 January 1984, Bull. No. 5: “Each of the joint tortfeasors who are liable for the same damage, and who have acted together to cause it in its entirety, is bound to indemnify wholly, so that the apportionment to which a court may proceed affects only the mutual relations between the tortfeasors, and not the extent of their obligations to the party suffering damage”. Recent confirmation of this rule can be found in a decision handed down on 20 June 2000 (Civ.1, Bull. No. 188), which states that “the fact that a person liable for damage has been ordered to indemnify for it does not deprive the victim of his interest in bringing suit against the others who are liable for the same damage as long as such victim has not received effective indemnification”.

2) Doctrine upheld: cf. Civ.2, 10 may 1991, Bull. No. 134: “Where damage is caused to a third party by the collision of two vehicles, and one of the two persons in full possession (“gardiens”) indemnifies the victim, that person has recourse against the other joint tortfeasor. If no fault can be proved against one of the drivers involved, their contribution to the indemnification is due in equal shares.”. See also Civ.2, 18 March 1989 (Bull. No. 86) and 20 June 2002 (published): “The driver of a motorised land vehicle who is involved in a traffic accident and is ordered to indemnify for damage caused to third parties can have recourse against another involved driver only on the basis of Articles 1382 and 1251 of the Civil Code; contribution to the debt is proportional to respective fault; if no fault is proved against the drivers involved, contribution is in equal shares.”.