(P.288) 2. Translation

[…]

Whereas the action brought by Monsieur Blanco against the Prefect of the Department of Gironde (representing the state) seeks to have the state declared liable in damages, under Articles 1382, 1383 and 1384 of the Civil Code, for the harm resulting from the injury sustained by his daughter due to the actions of workers employed by the Tobacco Administration;¹

Whereas the liability which may be incurred by the state for loss caused to individuals by the actions of persons whom it employs in the public service cannot be governed by the principles laid down in the Civil Code to regulate the legal relationships of individuals;²

That this liability is neither general nor absolute; it has its own special rules which vary depending upon the needs of the service³ and the necessity of reconciling the rights of the state with private rights;

That, therefore, according to the terms of the aforementioned laws, the administrative body⁴ has sole jurisdiction in this case.

Article 1. Confirmation of the decision finding a conflict of jurisdiction.

Translator's Notes

1. 1. At the time of the case, the state had a monopoly on the production, distribution, and sale of tobacco. It exercised this function acting as the ‘Tobacco Administration’.

2. 2. When using the word ‘individuals’, the Tribunal des Conflits was referring solely to private persons.

3. 3. The Tribunal des Conflits is referring here to the public service, as it explicitly recognized in the second paragraph of the judgment.

4. 4. Although the original text states that the administrative authority would have jurisdiction to resolve the dispute, the Tribunal des Conflits clearly intended that the Administrative Court was to decide the case.

(P.289) 2. Ce 21 June 1895, Cames [1895] Rec 509

No-fault liability for risks incurred in assisting in public service activities

Summary: reparation provided for a worker who lost the use of his hand whilst working in a nationalized munitions factory.

For further discussion of this case, see Chapter 5, at page 142.

1. Translation

[…]

Whereas Monsieur Cames, a worker at the Tarbes munitions factory, injured his left hand on 8 July 1892 due to a piece of shrapnel which had been discharged [by the action of a] pneumatic drill; that following that accident, Monsieur Cames permanently lost the use of his left hand and was thus unable to provide for his needs;

Whereas it transpires from the instruction ¹ and it is undisputed, that Monsieur Cames was not himself at fault, and that the accident is not attributable to the negligence or carelessness of Monsieur Cames; that in the circumstances in which the accident occurred, the Minister of War is wrong in contending that the state should not incur liability, and that it would be a correct assessment of damages to set the compensation owed to Monsieur Cames as a life annuity of 600 Francs, with payment backdated to 12 December 1893, the date on which Monsieur Cames stopped receiving his daily wages; and that as this constitutes sufficient reparation, Monsieur Cames' contention that the annuity should revert to his wife and children for the period of their lifetime must be rejected.

[…]

Translator's Notes

1. 1. The full elements of the case against the defendant as established by the inquisitorial procedure. For further analysis of the inquisitorial procedure before the French administrative courts, see Chapter 4, section 3.4.

(p.290) 3. CE 14 January 1938, La Fleurette [1938] Rec 25

No-fault liability for loss caused by legislation

Summary: liability in damages imposed for loss caused to a dairy by a law banning the production and sale of an artificial cream.

For further discussion of this case, see Chapter 5, at pages 144–5.