- •(P.V) Preface
- •(P.XV) Abbreviations
- •Introduction Duncan Fairgrieve
- •Abstract and Keywords
- •1. Comparative Law Approach
- •2. Delimitation of the Study
- •Overview of State Liability in English and French Law Duncan Fairgrieve
- •Abstract and Keywords
- •1. Introduction
- •2. The Historical Evolution of State Liability
- •2.1. The Early Period of State Liability
- •(P.9) 2.2. The Pre-modern Era
- •2.3. The Inception of Modern State Liability
- •(P.14) 2.4. Conclusion: Vestiges of Immunity?
- •3. Overview of Modern State Liability
- •4. State and Servant
- •(P.20) 4.1. France
- •4.2. England
- •4.3. Elements of Convergence
- •Public Law Unlawfulness and Liability in Damages Duncan Fairgrieve
- •Abstract and Keywords
- •1. Introduction
- •2. The Illegality–Fault Equation in French Law
- •2.1. Illegality as a Necessary Condition of Liability
- •2.2. Illegality as a Sufficient Condition of Fault
- •2.2.1. Traditional Theory
- •(P.33) 2.2.2. Modern Theory
- •(P.36) 3. The Role of Ultra Vires in English Tort Liability
- •3.1. Civil Action for Breach of Statutory Duty
- •3.2. Ultra Vires and Negligence Liability
- •3.2.1. The Status Quo Ante: Unlawfulness as a Precondition of Liability
- •3.2.2. The Barrett and Phelps Cases: Re-evaluating the Role of Public Law Unlawfulness
- •3.3. Public Law Unlawfulness and Other English Torts
- •3.3.1. Community Law
- •3.3.2. Damages under the Human Rights Act 1998
- •4. Conclusion
- •Beyond Illegality: Liability For Fault in English and French Law Duncan Fairgrieve
- •Abstract and Keywords
- •1. Introduction
- •2. English Law
- •(P.59) 2.1. Breach and Duty in the English Law of Negligence
- •2.1.2. The Notion of Proximity and the Test of Fairness, Justice, and Reasonableness
- •(P.64) 2.1.2.1. The Restrictive Approach to Duties of Care of Public Authorities
- •2.1.2.2. Recent Cases on Public Authority Liability: a Shift in Emphasis?
- •2.1.2.3. The House of Lords' Decisions in Barrett and Phelps
- •2.1.2.4. The Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights
- •2.1.2.5. The New Approach to Public Authority Liability
- •2.1.2.6. Move Away from Duty: a More Nuanced Approach to Policy Considerations
- •2.1.2.7. Move Away from Duty: a Shift to Breach
- •2.2. Beyond Negligence: Public Authority Liability in Tort
- •2.2.1. Misfeasance in Public Office
- •2.2.1.1. Introduction
- •2.2.1.2. Constituent Elements of Misfeasance in Public Office
- •2.2.1.3. The Place of Misfeasance in State Liability
- •2.2.2. Nuisance
- •2.2.3. Conclusion
- •3. French Law
- •3.1. The Notion of Faute de Service
- •(P.106) 3.2. Graded Standards of Fault in French Administrative Law
- •3.2.1. The Notion of Faute Lourde in French Administrative Law
- •3.2.1.1. Medical Sphere
- •3.2.1.2. Regulatory Authorities
- •3.2.1.3. Administrative Police
- •3.2.1.4. Emergency Services
- •3.2.1.5. Conclusion
- •3.2.2. Defining Faute Lourde
- •3.2.3. Theoretical Foundations of Faute Lourde
- •3.2.4. The Future of Graded Standards of Fault in French Administrative Law
- •3.3. Presumptions of Fault
- •3.4. Procedural Impact
- •4. Comparative Law Remarks
- •(P.125) 4.1. Signs of Similarity?
- •4.2. Comparative Lessons for the Application of Policy Concerns
- •Lawfully Caused Loss Duncan Fairgrieve
- •Abstract and Keywords
- •1. Introduction
- •2. French Law
- •2.1. Risk-based No-fault Liability
- •2.1.1. Risks Arising from Dangerous Operations
- •2.1.2. Risks of Assisting in Public Service Activities
- •2.2. Egalité devant les Charges Publiques
- •2.2.1. Legislation and Compensation
- •2.2.2. Liability Arising from Treaties
- •2.2.3. Liability for Lawful Administrative Acts
- •2.2.4. Conditions of Actions for Breach of Egalité
- •2.3. Miscellaneous Categories of No-fault Liability
- •2.3.1. Loss Arising From Public Works
- •2.3.2. Facilitating Reparation in the Medical Sphere
- •2.3.3. Statutory Regime
- •2.4. Conclusion
- •3. English Law
- •(P.155) 3.1. Nuisance
- •3.2. Rylands V Fletcher
- •(P.159) 3.3. The Influence of Human Rights Law
- •3.4. Other Regimes of No-fault Liability
- •(P.162) 4. Conclusion
- •Assessing the Causal Link Duncan Fairgrieve
- •Abstract and Keywords
- •1. Introduction
- •2. An Overview of the Tests of Causation in English and French Law
- •2.1. English Law
- •2.2. French Law
- •2.2.1. Orthodox Approach
- •2.2.2. Nuanced Approach
- •3. Comparing Approaches to Causal Problems
- •3.1. Multiple Causes
- •3.1.1. Act of a Third Party
- •(P.177) 3.1.2. Contributory Fault of the Injured Party
- •3.1.3. Act of Nature
- •3.2. Causation and Unlawful Administrative Acts
- •4. Conclusion
- •Damage and Compensation Duncan Fairgrieve
- •Abstract and Keywords
- •1. Introduction
- •1.1. French Administrative Law
- •(P.192) 1.2. English Law
- •2. Economic Loss30
- •2.1. Contrasting Stances Regarding Pure Economic Loss
- •2.1.1. English Law
- •2.1.2. French Law
- •2.2. Signs of Convergence
- •2.2.1. French Law: Limitations on Recovery?
- •2.2.2. Alternative Remedies in English Law
- •2.3. Conclusion
- •3. Loss of a Chance
- •3.1. The Lost Chance Doctrine in English Law
- •3.2. Damages for Lost Chances in French Law
- •3.3. Doctrinal Debate
- •(P.210) 3.4. Conclusion
- •4. Moral Damage in English and French Law
- •(P.211) 4.1. Préjudice Moral in French Law
- •4.1.1. Reluctance in Awarding Damages for Préjudice Moral
- •(P.213) 4.1.2. Status Quo
- •(P.214) 4.2. Non-pecuniary Loss in English Law
- •4.3. Comparative Law Comments
- •5. Damages for Injury to the Person
- •5.1. Basic Principles
- •(P.222) 5.2. Points of Divergence
- •5.2.1. General Comparative Remarks
- •(P.225) 5.2.2. Comparing the Treatment of Collateral Benefits348
- •6. Death and Damages Liability
- •6.1. Death Extinguishing a Right of Action
- •6.2. Right of Action Deriving From Death: Compensating Secondary Victims
- •6.2.1. French Law
- •6.2.2. English Law
- •6.2.3. Comparative Law Remarks
- •7. Property Damage
- •8. Conclusion
- •Alternative Means of Redress Duncan Fairgrieve
- •Abstract and Keywords
- •1. Introduction
- •2. France
- •3. England
- •3.1. Investigation by Ombudsman
- •(P.250) 3.2. Internal Procedures Providing Redress for Maladministration
- •4. Compensation Schemes in England and France
- •(P.254) 5. The French Medical Compensation System
- •6. Conclusion
- •Conclusion Duncan Fairgrieve
- •Abstract and Keywords
- •1. Similarities and Differences
- •(P.265) 2. Accounting for the Differences
- •2.1. Introduction
- •2.2. Difference in Philosophy
- •2.3. Procedural Factors
- •3. Learning from Comparative Law
- •3.1. Comparative Law and the Courts
- •3.2. Comparative Law and State Liability
- •3.2.1. Public Law Unlawfulness and Liability
- •(P.275) 3.2.2. Alternative Methods of Redress
- •3.2.3. Challenging Policy Concerns
- •3.2.4. Establishing a Balanced Approach to State Liability
- •(P.279) 3.2.4.1. Breach of Duty
- •3.2.4.2. Quantum of Damages
- •3.2.4.3. Causation
- •4. Conclusion
- •(P.285) Appendix
- •Illegality entails fault.
- •(P.287) 1. Tc 8 February 1873, Blanco, d.1873.3.17
- •1. Decision in French
- •(P.288) 2. Translation
- •(P.289) 2. Ce 21 June 1895, Cames [1895] Rec 509
- •1. Translation
- •1. Decision in French
- •2. Translation
- •1. Translation
- •1. Decision in French
- •2. Translation
- •(P.297) 6. Ce 26 January 1973, Driancourt [1973] Rec 78
- •Illegality entails fault
- •1. Decision in French
- •2. Translation
- •(P.301) 7. Ce 27 January 1988, Giraud [1988] Rec 39
- •1. Decision in French
- •(P.303) 2. Translation
- •(P.304) 8. Ce 29 December 1999, Communauté Urbaine de Lille [1999] Rec 436
- •1. Decision in French
- •2. Translation
- •(P.310) 9. Ce 28 June 2002, Magiera, Req 239575
- •1. Decision in French
- •2. Translation
- •1. Decision in French
- •2. Translation
- •(P.325) Bibliography
(P.285) Appendix
There follows a series of translations of French administrative law decisions relating to the topic of governmental liability. Where possible, the original French version accompanies the translation. In general, only the portion of the French decision relating to substantive law has been translated. The extraneous procedural aspects may be found in the original French text. Certain translations are accompanied by notes on the text. Where text has been omitted either from the original decision or the translation, the following indication is made: […].
I would like to thank Shamil Chotai for assistance in the translation of certain of these decisions.
The following decisions have been translated:
1. TC 8 February 1873, Blanco, D.1873.3.17.
Fault liability—inception of modern state liability.
2. CE 21 June 1895, Games [1895] Rec 509.
No-fault liability for risks incurred in assisting in public service activities.
3. CE 14 January 1938, La Fleurette [1938] Rec 25.
No-fault liability for loss caused by legislation.
4. CE 28 March 1919, Regnault-Desroziers [1919] Rec 329.
No-fault liability for risks arising from dangerous operations.
5. CE 4 October 1978, Société Linie [1978] Rec 355.
No-fault liability for decision-making which is lawful (in public law terms).
6. CE 26 January 1973, Driancourt [1973] Rec 78.
Illegality entails fault.
7. CE 27 January 1988, Giraud [1988] Rec 39.
Educational negligence—failure to teach subject on national curriculum.
8. CE 29 December 1999, Communauté Urbaine de Lille, [1999] Rec 436.
Liability of emergency services - Application of faute simple.
(p.286) 9. CE 28 June 2002, Magiera, Req 239575.
Liability for violation of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time.
10. CE 30 November 2001, Kechichian, AJDA 2002.136.
Liability of the state for failure properly to regulate banks - Liability premised on faute lourde.
(P.287) 1. Tc 8 February 1873, Blanco, d.1873.3.17
Fault liability—inception of modern state liability
Summary: damages action brought against Tobacco Administration when a child, Agnes Blanco, was injured by one of its wagons.
For further discussion of this case, see Chapter 2, at pages 12–13.
1. Decision in French
Tribunal des Conflits
Blanco
8 février 1873
Vu les lois des 16–24 août 1790 et du 16 fruct. an 3;
Vu l'ordonnance du 1er juin 1828 et la loi du 24 mai 1872;
Considérant que l'action intentee par le sieur Blanco contre le préfet du département de la Gironde, représentant l'Etat, a pour objet de faire déclarer l'Etat civilement responsable, par application des articles 1382, 1383 et 1384 c. civ., du dommage résultant de la blessure que sa fille aurait éprouvée par le fait d'ouvriers employes par l'administration des tabacs;
Considérant que la responsabilité qui peut incomber à l'Etat pour les dommages causés aux particuliers par le fait des personnes qu'il emploie dans le service public, ne peut etre regie par les principes qui sont établis dans le code civil pour les rapports de particulier à particulier;
Que cette responsabilite n'est ni générale, ni absolue; qu'elle a ses règies spéciales qui varient suivant les besoins du service et la nécessité de concilier les droits de l'Etat avec les droits privés;
Que, dès lors, aux termes des lois ci-dessus visées, l'autorité administrative est seule compétente pour en connaître:
Art.1. L'arrêté de conflit est confirmé.