Given that after an accident between the motorcycle driven by fifteen year-old Daboussy and a truck driven by Marini, one of Ascani’s employees, Ascani was held liable in part to pay Daboussy’s father and legal representative for of the harm suffered by Daboussy, as to which there was a medical report;

Given that Ascani criticises the judgment below for taking into account, in fixing the damages, the risk that Daboussy’s expectation of life had been shortened by the accident, whereas, according to the complainant, this was simply a possibility which could not call for compensation, and it was impossible to say whether in the decision under attack the court was laying down a principle of law or merely reflecting the facts of the case;

But given that the court below, following the medical report, found that the young man had had his spleen removed and that this inevitably shortened his life by a considerable amount, and rightly stated that the risk of an earlier death was certain enough to constitute damage for which compensation was sought;

Given that the court of appeal is not, when fixing the amount of damages,
to be criticised for taking account of this harm which on the facts of the case had been suffered;

For these reasons DISMISSES the application for review of the decision of the Court of Appeal of Aix-en-Provence of 10 June 1965.

Subsequent Developments

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

Civ 2, 13 March 1967: If there is no doubt about the existence of a right to reparation when harm is realised, future detriment can also be considered as certain. A judgment of the Cour de cassation of the 1 June 1932 expressly acknowledged this hypothesis since "detriment, even though future, appeared to the judge of fact as the certain and direct prolongation of a present state of affairs, and as being susceptible of immediate assessment". Other judgments have repeated this solution subsequently (cf particularly Civ 2, 15 December 1971 and 9 November 1972, Chambre mixte, 29 May 1970). Even though the Cour de cassation has not reaffirmed this principle recently, its case law on this point is considered by legal writers as constant.

Translation by Raymond Youngs