- •(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
2. Translation
[…]
Whereas following a complaint made by the President of the Association of the Friends of Avenue Victor Hugo, the Police Commissioner1 ordered Monsieur Driancourt in a decision of 7 December 1962 to stop using various games machines which had been installed in the establishment he owned at 85, Avenue Victor Hugo in the 16th Arrondissement in Paris; that on the application of Monsieur Driancourt, that same decision was found to be ultra vires and quashed by a decision of the Paris Administrative Court on 27 October 1964, which has not been subject to appeal; that by a second judgment of 22 June 1971, the same Court ordered the City of Paris to pay Monsieur Driancourt damages of 85,745 Francs; that the City of Paris appealed that decision; that by way of cross-appeal, Monsieur Driancourt's heirs claim that the damages awarded should be increased to 170,745 Francs with interest running from the date on which the claimant made his claim.
Concerning the issue of liability:
Whereas the unlawfulness of the Police Commissioner's decision of 7 December 1962 was established by a judgment which is now subject to res judicata;2 that this unlawfulness, even if it is attributable to a mere error of assessment, constitutes a fault which is capable of giving rise to the liability of the public authorities; that Monsieur Driancourt may recover damages for any direct and certain loss which has been caused by this unlawful decision.
Concerning the issue of the quantum of damages:
Whereas the Paris Administrative Court made an accurate assessment of the circumstances of the case in awarding Monsieur Driancourt the sum of 50,000 Francs, for the loss of profits from the machines which were the subject of the prohibition, and awarding the sum of 25,745 Francs for the loss sustained when these machines were resold, and 10,000 Francs for the troubles dans les conditions d'existence caused to Monsieur Driancourt; that the City of Paris is therefore not justified in requesting the reversal of the decision appealed.
Whereas, on the other hand, the Conseil d'Etat decides that interest on damages awarded by the Paris Administrative Court should, in accordance with the arguments of the cross-appeal, run from ‘the date of the initial claim’, namely from 18 July 1967.
(p.300) HELD:
Article 1. The appeal of the City of Paris is dismissed.
Article 2. The sum of 85,745 Francs which the City of Paris was ordered to pay Monsieur Driancourt by a decision of the Tribunal Administratif de Paris on the 27 October 1964 is subject to interest running from the 18 July 1967.
Article 3. The other grounds for the cross-appeal of Monsieur Driancourt are rejected.
Article 4. The City of Paris is liable for the costs incurred during the Conseil d'Etat proceedings.
Translator's Notes
1. The French phrase is ‘Préfet de police’.
2. Force de la chose jugée (literally ‘the quality of having been finally decided’) is a complex notion with close similarities to the plea of res judicata.