THE COURT OF APPEALS, FIRST CIVIL DIVISION. Limited training.

October 16, 2001. Decision No. 1579. Rejection.

Appeal No. 99-16854.

NOTE Leveneur, Lawrence, Contracts Competition Consumer Affairs, No. 2, 01/02/2002, pp.? 11-12

On appeal by:

1 ° / Switzerland company, limited liability company, successor in law of the Union Phoenix Spanish (UPE), headquartered 86, boulevard Haussmann, 75830 Paris Cedex 08,

2 ° / David Couturier, remaining residence Empire 3, place Napoleon, 85000 La Roche-sur-Yon,

to quash a decision of 19 May 1999 by the Lyon Court of Appeal (6th bedroom), for:

1 ° / of the primary health insurance fund (CPAM) in Lyon, with its headquarters 102, rue Masséna, 69006 Lyon, 12, rue d’Aubigny, 69003 Lyon,

2 ° / company Darty Rhone-Alpes, limited liability company, headquartered National Road 6, 69760 Limonest

3 ° / company PSL Thiébaud Alain, headquartered 24, rue Gorge de Loup, 69009 Lyon,

defendants to appeal;

By document lodged at the Registry of the Supreme Court March 20, 2001, the Swiss company said accidents continue suit in lieu of the company, Switzerland;

The plaintiff relies in support of its appeal, the sole means of appeal annexed to this Order;

Produced by means of Me Nervo, a lawyer for the company Boards Switzerland and M. Couturier.

The way criticizes the judgment

For saying there are no grounds to hold the breach of contract against the company following the damage DARTY October 10, 1993 by Mr. Couturier and dismissed him and his insurer, the company SWITZERLAND, their action liability against the seller

The grounds that at the end of August 1992, Miss LYONNET companion had ordered Mr. COUTURIER the Company DARTY a washing machine and stove; DARTY the Company had outsourced the delivery and the installation of these devices to the Company THIEBAUD, that October 10, 1993, a gas explosion caused by a faulty connection of the stove had ravaged the apartment of Mr. Couturier and caused him injury. the Co. SWITZERLAND invoked a duty to ensure safety on the Company DARTY as a seller and installer reported the “bond of trust ‘under which the company assured DARTY delivered to the device, connection and commissioning Free the existing facility, that the obligation of result carried both presumption of fault and presumed causal link between the service provided and the damage alleged, that he appeared from the evidence produced in the debate that the anticipation of the provision a connecting pipe was specified on the order but there was no record on the flow and that the installation sheet relating the various methods used in setting up the washing machine but no one on the stove outside the words “no test” that this form was signed by Miss Lyonnet for each appliance receipt of the material complies in good condition and confirming that the explanations and operations described were executed, that Mr. THIEBAUD and his employee argued that the transactions described in the schedule of installation and adjustment of slow burners had been made, that these statements Lyonnet Miss and Mr. Couturier opposed their claim that the staff had conducted DARTY to the entire system; that resulted from reports of the expert and the expert POURQUERY PARISOT several hypothesis about the cause of Demanche the hose from the gas stove that caused the gas leak and that the misconduct by company THIEBAUD and relied upon by the Company and Mr. Couturier SWITZERLAND use of a lubricant and no clamp type Serflex was not demonstrated, that just was not established the causal link between the provision of the Company DARTY and explosion.

WHILE the seller professional installer is required to the equipment in working order, so it is safe for people and property, it is an obligation of result; only in the event of an explosion of equipment sold, it can not escape liability by demonstrating that he did not at fault in relation to the injury; in dismissing Mr. Couturier and Company SWITZERLAND their action for damages against the Company DARTY, professional salesman required by his contract to install equipment on the grounds that the fault of the installer in relation to the injury was not established, the Court Appeals violated Articles 1315 and 1147 of the Civil Code.

And while the obligation to deliver the vendor contains an accessory obligation information and advice, in dismissing Mr. COUTURIER SWITZERLAND and the Company of their claims for compensation for damage caused by the explosion of the gas stove sold the company without seeking DARTY as requested findings call if this company and its subcontractor had attracted the attention of the user on precautions for use of equipment, the Court of Appeal private decision of any legal basis under Article 1147 of the Civil Code.

THE COURT

Acknowledges the Swiss company crashes it takes the body followed by the company, Switzerland;

On the sole ground, taken in its two branches:

Whereas in August 1992, Miss Lyonnet, with Mr. Couturier, has ordered the company Darty of a gas stove, the aircraft was delivered on September 7, 1992 by a subcontractor, the Thiébaud company, that on 13 October 1993, an explosion damaged the apartment of M. Couturier, and caused one injury and that, according to the legal expert, the explosion was caused by a gas leak in a row Demanche the hose to the stove that was not fixed by a clamp to the pipe, it is not possible to say whether this failure was from a faulty installation of the company or Mr. Thiebaud Couturier Lyonnet or Miss;

Whereas M. Couturier and his insurer, the company Switzerland, complain that the judgment (Lyon, May 19, 1999) have dismissed their action for damages brought against the company Darty, then, according to the means:

1 ° / the seller, professional installer is required to the equipment in working order, so it is safe for people and property, it is an obligation results, that in the event of an explosion of equipment sold, it can not escape liability by demonstrating that he did not at fault in relation to the injury; in dismissing M. Couturier, Switzerland and the company of their action for damages against the company Darty, professional salesman required by his contract to install equipment on the grounds that the fault of the installer in relation to the injury was not established, the court of appeal violated Articles 1315 and 1147 of the Civil Code;

2 / that the obligation to issue the seller has an obligation accessory information and advice, in dismissing Mr. Couturier Switzerland and the company of their claims for damages caused by the explosion of the stove gas sold by the company Darty, without seeking, as requested findings of appeal, if that company and its subcontractor had attracted the attention of the user on precautions for use of equipment, the appellate court’s decision deprived of any legal basis under Article 1147 of the Civil Code;

But wait, first, that the strict liability burden on the seller-installer does not extend to damage caused by the breach of its obligation of result , it was incumbent, therefore, to Mr. Couturier and his insurer to demonstrate that the explosion had originated from the provision made, in this case, based on the expert report, the Court of Appeal held that there were only assumptions about the accountability of the damage that could come either from a faulty installation performed by the company or Mr. Thiebaud Couturier Lyonnet or Miss, or a subsequent amendment of the installation by Mr. or Ms. Couturier Lyonnet, that these grounds alone on the plurality of hypothetical causes, the Court of Appeal legally justified its decision;

Whereas, on the other hand, Mr. Couturier and his insurer solely having based their action for damages for breach of the seller-installer in its obligation to security, the Court of Appeal did not have to search through invoked;

Hence it follows that any of its branches, the appeal is unfounded;

FOR THESE REASONS:

Dismiss the appeal;

Condemns the Swiss company and Mr. Couturier accident costs;

Having regard to Article 700 of the new Code of Civil Procedure, rejected the request of the company Darty Rhone-Alps;

On the report of Ms. Benas, counselor, the observations of Me Nervo, the Swiss company lawyer accidents and M. Couturier, CPS Defrénois and Levis, counsel for the company Darty Rhone-Alpes, the conclusions of Mr. St. Rose, General Counsel; Lemontey Mr. President.

Advertisements

Posted on ខែមករា 11, 2012, in យុត្តិសាស្រ្ត. Bookmark the permalink. បាន​បិទ​ការ​បញ្ចេញ​មតិ នៅ case 54.

ការ​បញ្ចេញ​មតិ​ត្រូវ​បាន​បិទ។

%d bloggers like this: