Cour de cassation:

Given that on 26 March 1981 the television set manufactured by Thomson-Brandt which Mme Hervieu had bought in 1973 caught fire and imploded with resulting damage to Mme Hervieu’s apartment and other parts of the building; that the Groupe des assurances mutuelles de France, as insurer of Mme Hervieu and subrogated to her rights of action, claimed from Thomson-Brandt an indemnity for the sums it had paid out to its insured and to the other owners of property in the building; that the consortium of owners also claimed compensation for the damage not covered by the insurance, and that these claims were granted by the Court of Appeal of Paris whose judgment is now under attack;

On the second limb of the second ground of appeal by Thomson-Brandt:

In view of article 1135 Code civil:

Given that after finding that on the day it was delivered the television set had no manufacturing defect the court below nevertheless held that the defendant seller “was in breach of its obligation not to place on the market goods whose operation could prove dangerous”;

Given that in so holding when the business seller’s obligation is only to deliver products free from any vice or manufacturing defect which could endanger person or property the court of appeal has misapplied the text cited;

On the third ground of appeal:

In view of articles 1147 and 1384 (1) Code civil:

Given that having found Thomson-Brandt strictly liable for breach of its contractual obligations, the court held it liable for the damage which the implosion of Mme Hervieu’s television set caused to the co-owners of the building, and that in so holding when there was no contractual link between those co-owners and Thomson-Brandt, the Court of Appeal misapplied the first of the texts cited above and failed to apply the second;

For these reasons

QUASHES the judgment below and remands the case to the Court of Appeal of Versailles.

This note on subsequent developments reflects the legal situation as of October 2004.

Civ 1, 20 March 1989 : The obligation of a seller only to supply products free from all defects or from fault in manufacture likely to create a danger for persons or property is reaffirmed constantly by the Cour de cassation (Civ 1, 11 June 1991, Bull no 201, 15 October 1996, Bull no 354, 28 April 1998, Bull no 158...). However, the judgment makes it clear that, in itself, the dangerous character of an item which is sold does not suffice to involve liability on the part of the seller or the manufacturer: it is still necessary for the harm to have been caused by a defect inherent in the object sold (cf Civ 1, 22 January 1991, Bull no 30: "The obligation of safety by which the manufacturer and the seller of certain products in common use specially intended for the care or comfort of the human body are bound is limited to the delivery of products which, when used in conditions conforming to the recommendations of the suppliers, do not normally show any dangerous characteristic for their users, and this obligation does not entail a guarantee as of right for all the harm which is capable of resulting from their use"). When a civil liability action is involved, the solution affirmed by this judgment based on the principle of the relative effect of contracts seems to be reopened by the case law and, from now on, by the Law of the 19 May 1998 (cf notes under Civ 1, 17 January 1995). The contrast between these two types of liability recedes in favour of a legal obligation of safety which is neither specifically delictual nor contractual.

Translation by Raymond Youngs

Back to top

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