| Date |
Citation |
Note |
| 24.01.2006 |
Bull.civ. 2006.I.no. 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. 2004.I.no. 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. |