He fell through a skylight in his neighbour’s garage and on his neighbour’s vehicle, which was parked there. He is and suffers from a ankle. 2) What was the procedural course of this case? The victim contacted the insurer of his neighbour’s vehicle to obtain compensation for his bodily injury . At first instance and before the PARIS Court of Appeal, the trial judges granted his request by ordering a medical report and awarding him a provision the final compensation for his damages. The Judges the provisions of the BADINTER Law n° 85-677 of July 05, 1985 which provide that a victim is by the insurer of a vehicle as soon as this vehicle is in the accident of the road.
Such a Decision Is Not Surprising
Since case law has always considered, consistently, that the parking of a vehicle is a fact of circulation and that the parking of a vehicle in a private place does not exclude the application of the BADINTER Law. 3) What was the position of the Court of Cassation? The High Court, in a surprising judgment, rendered Haiti email list in section formation (that is to say in the presence of 10 Councillors), broke with its traditional conception of the notion of the involvement of a vehicle in a road accident . circulation . According to the Court of Cassation , does not constitute a traffic accident , the accident resulting from the fall of a victim on a vehicle parked in a private garage, when none of the elements related to its function of movement is cause of the bodily injury.
The Victim Is Thus Deprive
The possibility of invoking the legal regime (favorable to victims ) of the BADINTER Law allowing him to obtain compensation for his damage from the insurer of the vehicle on which he fell. 4) What is the point of this decision? The High Court has, in the past, expressly considered that the parking of a vehicle on Gambling Email List the public highway is an act of circulation within the meaning of the Law of July 05, 1985 see in particular The Court of Cassation has also applied the BADINTER Law to accidents occurring in a private place and specifically a garage (see in particular Cass. 2nd Civ. May 22, 2014, No. 13-10.561 ) . It was therefore reasonable to expect that, in this case, the Court of Cassation would apply the traditional principles that it has established over the years.
