The University of Texas at Austin   School of Law

Main menu:

Cour de Cassation — Tort Law — Medical liability

Date Citation Note
24.01.2006 Bull.civ. 34 p. 32 First Civil Chamber, (pourvoi no. 03-20.178)  
24.01.2006 Bull.civ. 2006.I. no. 29 p. 26 First Civil Chamber, (pourvoi no. 01-16.684 and 17.042)  
24.01.2006 Bull.civ. 2006.I. no. 31 p. 29 First Civil Chamber, (pourvoi no. 02-13.775)  
24.01.2006 Bull.civ. 2006.I. no. 30 p. 28 First Civil Chamber, (pourvoi no. 02-12.260)  
20.10.2005 Bull.civ. 2005.II. no. 275 p. 244 Second Civil Chamber, (pourvoi no. 04-14.787)  
09.11.2004 Bull.civ. 2004 I no. 262, p. 219 First Civil Chamber, (pourvoi no. 01-17.908)  
09.11.2004 Bull.civ. 260, p. 217 First Civil Chamber, (pourvoi no. 01-17.168)  
18.07.2000 JCP 2000.II.10415 Case M. v. Clinique le Coteau

Subsequent developments
A private psychiatric clinic owes the patient a contractual duty to take all the protective steps required by the gravity of his condition. Third parties who suffer loss can claim only in delict, but need prove no more than that their loss was caused by the breach of the contract with the patient.
09.11.1999 JCP 2000.II.10251 Case Morisot v. D.

Subsequent developments
A patient injured by falling in the doctor’s surgery has no claim if there is nothing wrong with the equipment or the premises and the doctor is not at fault.
29.06.1999 JCP 1999.II.10138 (first decision) Case M. v. Clinique Ambroise Paré

Subsequent developments
A hospital is strictly liable for any infection the patient contracts there, and a doctor who fails to inform the patient of the risk of such infection is liable for the loss to the patient of the chance of avoiding it, the damages in the latter case being a proportion of all the consequent damage, not merely loss of amenity and pain and suffering.
15.06.1999 Bull. Civ. 1999 I no. 250 p. 202 Case Laurent v. CPAM de la Haute-Vienne

Subsequent developments
26.05.1999 JCP 1999.II.10112 Case D. v. Clinique Victor Pauchet de Butler Subsequent Development A clinic is not liable for the professional faults of a doctor practising there unless he is paid by it.
07.10.1998 Bull. Civ. 1998 I no. 287 p. 199 Case Rozec v. CPAM de Pau Subsequent Development  
27.05.1998 D. 1998.J.530 Case X v. T

Subsequent developments
27.05.1998 D. 1997, 21 96-17.197 Case Y v. X

Subsequent developments
03.03.1998 Bull. Civ. 1998 I no. 90 p. 60 96-13.775 Case Lepage v. CPAM des Yvelines

Subsequent developments
17.02.1998 Bull. Civ. 1998 I no. 67 p. 45 95-21.715 Case Verite v. Blanquart

Subsequent developments
14.10.1997 Bull. Civ. 1997 I no. 276 p. 187 95-21.390 Case Oubarahon v. CPAM des Pyrénées Orientales

Subsequent developments
10.07.1995 Unpublished: 93-16.561 Case Attali v. Lagofun

Subsequent developments
04.04.1995 Bull. Civ. 1995 I no. 159 p. 151 93-13.326 Case Legendre v. CPAM de la Manche

Subsequent developments
28.02.1995 Bull. Civ. I no 103 p. 74 Case Petitdidier v. Chaîne thermal du soleil

Subsequent developments
Since a curative establishment is strictly liable to its client for its premises, apparatus and personnel, its only defence when the baths burn down is force majeure, as regards which the civil court is not bound by any finding of a criminal court.
22.11.1994 Bull. Civ. 1994 I no. 340 Case Mounier v. Bernard

Subsequent developments
A dentist is strictly liable if the prosthesis he recommends and supplies is dangerous, and the patient is not at fault unless warned of the dangers of using it.
07.10.1992 Bull. Civ. 1992 I no. 243 p. 161 Case Rouge v. Bon

Subsequent developments
A person displeased with the results of cosmetic surgery to which she has agreed with knowledge of its risks must pay the surgeon unless he was at fault.
30.05.1986 D. 1987, 109 Case Mme F. v. L.

Subsequent developments
A surgeon’s duty extends to taking care to see that his patient receives post-operative supervision.