6. How do these General Frameworks of Liability and Recourse Impact on ‘Liability for Products’?

In the following chapters, I will look at how these general frameworks of liability, whether public or private, impact on liability for products.

In Chapters 3 to 5 I shall look at private law. In Chapter 3, I shall start by looking at the way in which the law of delict has governed French liability for products, whether this liability rests on members of the chain of distribution (such as manufacturers or suppliers) or on others, notably, on their gardiens. In this respect, I shall spend some time exploring the significance of ‘delictual fault’ in French law, from an institutional and procedural as well as juristic point of view. I shall then look at the complex law governing liability for the ‘deeds of things’. In Chapter 4 I shall examine the way in which the law of sale has been used to govern many issues of liability for products, looking at the various foundations of liability and the range of remedies available to a buyer or sub-buyer. In Chapter 5, I shall look at a range of examples of other categories of person liable in private law in respect of things. Some of these liabilities arise in a defendant in the context of the supply of the property in question (such as those who contribute to the construction of buildings or who hire property); some arise instead owing to the intellectual input into the property, such as designers or architects; for some, liability is imposed owing to their failure to advise accurately as to the safety or (p.39) quality of property neither supplied or used by themselves (as is the case with certifiers).

By contrast with this treatment of private law, my treatment of the impact of public law on liability for things is rather more complex. For example, on what basis or bases are public bodies liable for the things which they employ in the public service? As ever, ‘things’ for this purpose are as varied as military explosives, blood products in public hospitals, mains electricity, cars used by civil servants or a public monument such as the Paris Opera House. While sometimes French law treats liability in these sorts of situation as belonging to public law, this is by no means always the case.

Here, I distinguish three types of situations. In the first (dealt with in Chapter 6), I shall look at the impact of administrative law on the use or supply of things, these things typically, but not exclusively, being used or supplied by public bodies. Here, I shall look at the application of the administrative law of liability for fault, liability without fault and governing ‘public works’ in this context.

By contrast, in Chapter 7 I shall look at a number of situations which straddle the categories of administrative and private law. This straddling can either take the form of the use of private law to govern the liabilities, or at least some of the liabilities of certain classes of public bodies in respect of the use or supply of things. Here, a prime example is the complex of liabilities governing the supply of ‘public utilities’ such as gas, water and electricity. Sometimes, though, this straddling of the categories of public and private law takes the form of looking at a factual or functional category of activity which is recognisably the same whether carried on by a public and or a private body. Here, an example may be found in the case of liability in respect of the use or supply of products in the course of medical care.

Thirdly, however, I wish to distinguish cases of liability imposed on a public authority for failing to exercise its powers of supervision or control over the safety of things, again whether these are movable or immovable. In French law, this liability clearly falls to be governed by public law. In my view, this law is distinctive in a more profound way, for this situation involves the exercise by a public body of powers which are peculiarly public. They are public not merely in the sense that they are granted for the furtherance of the public interest, but also in the sense that they include powers which ordinary citizens do not enjoy. It is for this reason that I deal with this area in a separate section of this work, where I shall compare the position in English law.¹⁷⁶

Notes:

(¹) See generally, Brown and Bell, Chap. 3 ; Bell, Boyron and Whittaker, Chap. 2 ; J. Allison, A Continental Distinction in the Common Law—A Historical and Comparative Perspective on English Public Law (revised edn., OUP, 1996) .

(²) See further Brown and Bell, Chap. 6 and esp. 129–35 ; Gaudemet, Droit administratif, Tome 1, 390 referring to le service public as the general criterion, but explaining the nuances of the modern law. See further Chapus, Droit administratif général, Tome 1, 3–6 ; and the key work by J. Rivero, ‘Existe-t-il un critère du droit administratif?’ (1953) RDP 279 .

(³) See below, pp. 115, 121–31 respectively.

(⁴) Chapus, Droit administratif général, Tome 1, 764–6 .

(⁵) Civ. (1) 10 Jun. 1986, cons. Pourcel, JCP 1986.II.20683 rapp. P. Sargos.

(⁶) TC 8 Feb. 1873, DP 1873.3.17.

(⁷) Below, pp. 144–55; 33, 60–1, 115; 111, 126–7.

(⁸) Below, pp. 144–5.

(⁹) Bell, Legal Cultures, 37–42; 46–8 .

(¹⁰) Richer, Droit des contrats administratifs, 25–6 , below, p. 33.

(¹¹) L. Josserand, ‘La “Publicisation” du Contrat’ in Recueil d’Etudes en l’honneur d’Edouard Lambert (Paris, 1938) Tome 3, 143 and below, p. 23.

(¹²) ‘Extra-contractual liability’ here typically refers to what in private law would be delictual liability, but it also includes a rather restrained body of law governing cases which in private law would attract liability under one of the quasi-contrats or enrichissement sans cause.

(¹³) See below, pp. 140–6, 150–1. Another example can be found in the influence of the administrative treatment of liability for the harm caused by escaped mental patients in CE Sect. 3 Feb. 1956, Thouzellier, Leb. 49, D 1956.596 note J.-M. Auby on the acceptance of a general principle of liability for another’s deeds in Ass. plén. 29 Mar.1991, Blieck, D 1991.324 note Larroumet, JCP 1991.II.21673 conc. Dottenwille.

(¹⁴) See below, pp. 40–50, 311–15.

(¹⁵) Below, pp. 45–6, 313–4.

(¹⁶) Below, pp. 30–2, 311–15.

(¹⁷) Below, pp. 24–7.

(¹⁸) Below, pp. 32, 119–21.

(¹⁹) Notably, Jean de Domat, Les lois civiles dans leur ordre naturel (ed. de Héricourt), Paris, 1715 ) and Pothier, Obligations ; and see Zimmermann, Obligations, 544–5 ; J. Gordley, The Philosophical Origins of Modern Contract Doctrine (OUP, 1991) 217 et seq.

(²⁰) Art. 1101 C. civ.

(²¹) V. Ranouil, L’autonomie de la volonté, Naissance et évolution d’un concept (PUF, Paris, 1980) .

(²²) Nicholas, 32–6 .

(²³) Below, p. 64.

(²⁴) Nicholas, 33–4 .

(²⁵) Below, pp. 93–5, 105.

(²⁶) Below, pp. 64–9 and 28, 72, 100, respectively.

(²⁷) Below, pp. 68–9.

(²⁸) Civ. 12 Feb. 1975, JCP 1975.II.18179 note Viney; Civ. 20 May 1936, DP 1936.1.88 rapp. Josserand, concl. Matter (though see below, p. 152); Paris 9 Feb. 1968, JCP 1968.II.15653 note R. Prieur and Civ. 21 Nov. 1911, S 1912.1.73 note Lyon-Caen, D 1913.1.249 note Sarrut, respectively.

(²⁹) Below, pp. 100–1.

(³⁰) Below, pp. 72, 455–7, 461–2.

(³¹) Arts. 1134 al. 3, 1135 C. civ. For criticism of this ‘forcing’ of contract see L. Josserand, ‘L’essor moderne du concept contractuel’ in Recueil d’études sur les Sources du Droit en l’honneur de François Gény, (Librairie du Recueil Sirey, Paris, 1935), Tome II, 333 at 340, 345 . As to the role of good faith in French law, see R. Zimmermann and S. Whittaker (eds.), Good Faith in European Contract Law (CUP, 2000) 32–39 ; Terré, Simler, Lequette, Obligations, 182–3; 434–41 .

(³²) Josserand, ibid. ; G. Marty and P. Raynaud, Droit civil, Tome II, Vol. I (2nd. edn., Sirey, Paris, 1988), 250 .

(³³) For an excellent introduction, see Terré, Simler, Lequette, Obligations, 39 et seq. and for a developed communitarian position: D. Mazeaud, ‘Loyauté, solidarité, fraternité: la nouvelle devise contractuelle?’ in Mélanges en hommage à François Terré: L’avenir du droit (PUF, Dalloz…Ed. Juris-Classeur, Paris, 1999) 603 .

(³⁴) L. Josserand, ‘La “publicisation du contrat”’, in Recueil d’études en l’honneur d’Edouard Lambert (LDGJ, Paris, 1938) Tome 3, 143 .

(³⁵) Below, pp. 65–7, 84–5.

(³⁶) Zimmermann, Obligations, 1032–5 .

(³⁷) Below, pp. 40–6.

(³⁸) Cf. below, pp. 159–62.

(³⁹) 823 I BGB and see B. Markesinis and H. Unberath, The German Law of Torts: A Comparative Treatise (Hart Publishing, Oxford, 4th. edn., 2002) Chap. 2 .

(⁴⁰) Viney and Jourdain, Conditions, 11 et seq.

(⁴¹) French discussions generally refer to three types of losses: préjudice matériel, préjudice corporel and dommage moral, though the first of these is sometimes called ‘préjudice économique, pécuniare, patrimonial ou financier’. Préjudice corporel may be translated as ‘personal injury’ and dommage moral includes what a common lawyer would term mental distress, grief, psychiatric injury or damage to reputation. French law treats all losses other than these indiscriminately as préjudice matériel, including those which English law categorises as physical damage to property or pure economic loss: P. Prud’ homme, La réparation du préju-dice non-corporel en droit français et en droit anglais: un aperçu des rapports de la responsabilité contractuelle et de la responsabilité délictuelle (thèse, Paris II, 1990), 1–3 .

(⁴²) Terré, Simler, Lequette, Obligations, 860–2 . This principle is qualified as regards contractual liability where in general harm must have been foreseen or forseeable at the time of contract: arts. 1150–1 C. civ. According to Bénabent, Obligations, 475–6 the principle of réparation intégrale is tempered in practice by the power of assessment of the lower courts.

(⁴³) Bell, Boyron and Whittaker, 357 et seq.

(⁴⁴) Arts. 1384–1386 C. civ.

(⁴⁵) Art. 1384 al. 4 C. civ. (as amended).

(⁴⁶) Art. 1384 al. 6 C. civ.

(⁴⁷) Art. 1384 al. 5 C. civ.

(⁴⁸) Art. 1384 al. 7 C. civ.

(⁴⁹) Civ. (2) 19 Feb. 1997, D 1997.265 note Jourdain. The child need not be liable for the harm: Civ. (2) 10 May 2001, JCP 2001.II.10613 note J. Mouly.

(⁵⁰) This still applies to the liability of a craftsman for his apprentice: arts. 1384 al. 6…al. 7 C. civ.

(⁵¹) Loi of 5 Apr. 1937, now art. L. 911–4 C. éduc.; Malaurie, Aynès and Stoffel-Munck, Obligations, 73 .

(⁵²) Art. 1384 al. 5 C. civ.

(⁵³) Malaurie, Aynès and Stoffel-Munck, Obligations, 76–7 .

(⁵⁴) Art. 1384 al. 5 C. civ.

(⁵⁵) Civ. (2) 8 Oct. 1969, Bull. civ. II No. 269.

(⁵⁶) Notably, under art. 1384 al. 1 C. civ. and art. 1385 C. civ., since these liabilities are imposed on the gardien, who in these circumstances is the employer: Civ. 30 Dec. 1936, D 1937.1.5 rapport Josserand, note R Savatier (‘deeds of things’); Civ. (2) 15 Dec. 1976, Laclergerie, JCP 1977.IV.34 (animals).

(⁵⁷) Notably, in the criminal courts: below, pp. 376, 381.

(⁵⁸) Flour, Aubert and Savaux, Fait juridique, 227 .

(⁵⁹) Ass. plén. 29 Mar. 1991, Blieck, D 1991.324 note Larroumet, JCP 1991.II.21673 concl. Dottenwille. For the text of art. 1384 al. 1 C. civ., above, p. 24.

(⁶⁰) Civ. (2) 22 May 1995, JCP 1996.II. 22550 note Mouly (injury to rugby player by unidentified member of opposing team).

(⁶¹) Civ. (2) 22 May 1995, JCP 1995.I.3893 n. 5 note Viney, D 1996.453 note Le Bars and Buhler.

(⁶²) Malaurie, Aynès and Stoffel-Munck, Obligations, 68 .

(⁶³) Crim. 26 Mar. 1997 (3 cases): (1st. case) JCP 1998.II.10015 note M. Huyette, (2nd. case) JCP 1997.II.22868, rapp. F. Desportes; (3rd. case) D 1997.496 note P. Jourdain.

(⁶⁴) J.A.C. Thomas, A Textbook of Roman Law (North-Holland, 1976), 382–3 (pauperies)…pp. 378–9 (actio de posito et suspenso).

(⁶⁵) A. Tunc, ‘“It is wise not to take the Civil Codes too seriously” Traffic accident compensation in France’, in Essays in Memory of Professor F. H. Lawson (ed. P. Wallington…R. M. Merkin) (Butterworths, London, 1986), 71 at 72 et seq. Cf. A. Watson, Failures of the Legal Imagination (Scottish Academic Press, Edinburgh, 1988) 7–8 .

(⁶⁶) Cf. F.H. Lawson and B.S. Markesinis, Tortious Liability for Unintentional Harm in the Common Law and the Civil Law (CUP, 1982) Vol. I., 146–57 .

(⁶⁷) Josserand note to Lyon 12 Dec. 1902, Req. 3 Jun. 1904, D 1907.1.177.

(⁶⁸) Civ. 16 Jun. 1896, S 1897.1.17 note Esmein.

(⁶⁹) Civ. 29 Jul. 1924, D 1925.1.5 note Ripert is an early example of its application. Cf. Req. 19 Apr. 1914, D 1914.1.303 (exploding soda syphon at café).

(⁷⁰) In Req. 13 Apr. 1934, D 1934.1.41 note Savatier, it was established that fault in the victim which did not amount to force majeure could lead to a partial reduction of damages.

(⁷¹) Cons. Le Marc’hadour rapp. DP1930.1.57 at 64; L. Josserand, ‘Le travail de refoulement de la responsabilité du fait des choses inanimes’, DH Chron. 1930.5. Cf. G. Ripert who had argued that only dangerous things required la garde: note, Civ. 29 Jul. 1924, D 1925.1.5.

(⁷²) Ch. réun. 13 Feb. 1930, S 1930.1.121 note Esmein, DP 1930.1.57 note Ripert.

(⁷³) S. Whittaker, The Relationship between Contract and Tort: a Comparative Study of French and English Law (Oxford, D. phil. thesis, 1987).

(⁷⁴) Civ. 11 Jan. 1922, S 1924.1.105 note Demogue, DP 1922.1.16; Civ. (2) 9 Jun. 1993, Bull. civ. II, no. 204 and see Viney, Introduction à la responsabilité, 403 et seq.

(⁷⁵) See above, pp. 23–4.

(⁷⁶) T. Weir, ‘Complex Liabilities’ in International Encyclopedia of Comparative Law, (A. Tunc, chief ed.) (1982), Vol XI, Chap. 12, 28 .

(⁷⁷) Above, pp. 26–7.

(⁷⁸) E.g. M. Sauzet, ‘De la responsabilité des patrons vis-à-vis des ouvriers dans les accidents industriels’, (1883) Rev. crit., 596, 614 .

(⁷⁹) J.-E. Labbé, note, S 1885.4.25.

(⁸⁰) This distinction was first drawn by R. Demogue in 1925: Traité des obligations en général (Arthur Rousseau, Paris, 1925), Tome V, no. 1237 et seq. Force majeure is a defence to obligations de résultat.

(⁸¹) Civ. 20 May 1936, DP 1936.1.88 rapp. Josserand, concl. Matter. On the fate of this jurisprudence, see below, pp. 151–2.

(⁸²) Bénabent, Obligations, 204 . For further discussion, see Viney and Jourdain, Conditions, 457 et seq. For examples, see below, pp. 72, 100.

(⁸³) Malaurie, Aynès and Stoffel-Munck, Obligations, 476 (concerning the position of carriers).

(⁸⁴) E.g. Civ. (1) 17 Jan. 1995, D 1995.350 note P. Jourdain (school liable under contractual obligation de sécurité which extends to the ‘deed of things which are used for the performance of the obligation’). More generally see Bénabent, Obligations, 271 et seq. referring to the ‘disorder’ in the law.

(⁸⁵) S. Whittaker, ‘Privity of Contract and the Law of Tort: The French Experience’ (1995) 15 OJLS 327 .

(⁸⁶) Ibid., 345 .

(⁸⁷) Ass. plén. 12 Jul. 1991, Besse, JCP 1991.II.21743 note Viney (abandoning the theory of ‘groups of contracts’).

(⁸⁸) Ass. plén. 7 Feb. 1986, D 1986.293 note Bénabent (liability based on ‘contractual non-conformity’); Civ. (1) 21 Jan. 2003, Bull. civ. I no. 18; Art. 1792 C. civ. and see below.

(⁸⁹) Civ. (1) 9 Oct. 1979, Lamborghini, D 1980.IR.222 obs. Larroumet; GP 1980.1.249 note Planqueel.

(⁹⁰) Art. 1386–1 C. civ.

(⁹¹) Bénabent, Obligations, 369 and see Civ. (3) 18 Apr. 1972, Bull. civ. III no. 233; Civ. (1) 11 Apr. 1995, Bull. civ. no. 171.

(⁹²) Civ. (1) 15 Dec. 1998, Bull. civ. I. no. 368; Civ. (1) 18 Jul. 2000, Bull. civ. I no. 221; Civ. (1) 13 Feb. 2001, Bull. civ. I no. 35.

(⁹³) Civ. (1) 13 Feb. 2001, cit. and see below, pp. 150, 461–5.

(⁹⁴) Com. 8 Oct. 2002, JCP 2003 Chron. 152 no. 3 obs. Viney.

(⁹⁵) Brown and Bell, 25 , referring to P. Weil, Le droit administratif (Paris, 1980) 8 .

(⁹⁶) Above, p. 19.

(⁹⁷) Vedel and Delvolvé, Droit administratif, Tome 1, 35–6 .

(⁹⁸) Below, pp. 306–10, 332–5.

(⁹⁹) See below, p. 313.

(¹⁰⁰) Brown and Bell, Chap. 9 .

(¹⁰¹) See below, Chap. 6.

(¹⁰²) For an excellent comparative discussion see Fairgrieve, State Liability .

(¹⁰³) Braibant and Stirn, Droit administratif français, 315 .

(¹⁰⁴) E. Laferrière, Traité de la juridiction administrative et des recours contentieux (Berger-Levrault, Paris, 2nd. edn., 1896), Vol. 2, 13 and 183 et seq.

(¹⁰⁵) Loi du 28 pluviôse, art. 4 and see below, pp. 121–31.

(¹⁰⁶) Art 75 of Constitution 22 Frimaire an VIII (1799).

(¹⁰⁷) Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, 345–8 .

(¹⁰⁸) TC 30 Jul. 1873, Pelletier DP 1874.3.5 (the rule had been repealed during the Paris Commune in 1870). An exception is found where the public servant commits a fault ‘detachable from the public service’. For further discussion, see Fairgrieve, State Liability, 20 et seq.

(¹⁰⁹) TC 8 Feb. 1873, S 1873.153 (trans. Brown and Bell, 183) .

(¹¹⁰) Above, pp. 23–7.

(¹¹¹) Here, the leading decision was CE 10 Feb. 1905, Tomasco-Greco, DP 1906.3.81.

(¹¹²) E.g. as regards medical liability (below, p. 144). For other examples, see below, pp. 315–18.

(¹¹³) Gaudemet, Droit administratif, Tome 1, 806 .

(¹¹⁴) Ibid., 807–8 ; CE Sect 26 Jan. 1973, Driancourt, Leb. 78 and see further Fairgrieve, State Liability, Chap. 3 .

(¹¹⁵) Vedel and Delvolvé, Droit administratif, Tome I, 550 et seq.

(¹¹⁶) Fairgrieve, State Liability, Chap. 5 .

(¹¹⁷) CE 21 Jun. 1895, Cames, D 1896.3.65 concl. Romieu.

(¹¹⁸) Civ. 16 Jun. 1896, D 1897.1.433 note Saleilles, S 1897.1.17 note Esmein and see above, pp. 26–7.

(¹¹⁹) Below, pp. 118–21.

(¹²⁰) Chapus, Droit administratif général, Tome 1, 1363 et seq.

(¹²¹) CE 30 Nov. 1923, Couitéas, D 1923.3.59 concl. Rivet.

(¹²²) Above, pp. 24–7.

(¹²³) Below, pp. 121–31.

(¹²⁴) Below, pp. 124–9.

(¹²⁵) Below, pp. 129–30.

(¹²⁶) Brown and Bell, 202 et seq. ; Gaudemet, Droit administratif, Tome I, 671 et seq.; Richer, Droit des contrats administratifs, 84 et seq. Some types of contracts concluded by the administration are classified as administrative by legislation: e.g. public works contracts (marchés de travaux publics): loi of 28 pluviôse an VIII, art. 4.

(¹²⁷) Brown and Bell, 203 et seq.

(¹²⁸) E.g. the recognition of clauses exorbitantes and the principle of imprévision so as to allow the modification of administrative contracts in the light of supervening circumstances: and cf. below, p. 133.

(¹²⁹) Below, pp. 116–18.

(¹³⁰) E.g. where a claimant is a ‘user’ of a service public administratif : below, p. 135.

(¹³¹) E.g. the liability of services publics industriels et commerciaux to their customers: below, pp. 135–6.

(¹³²) Below, Chap. 7.

(¹³³) As I shall explain, French private law is complicated by a division between the position where obligations are solidaires (this being termed solidarité) and where they owe obligations in solidum (sometimes termed solidarité imparfaite): below, pp. 546–7.

(¹³⁴) Below, pp. 322–4, 551–3.

(¹³⁵) Ibid.

(¹³⁶) CE Sect. 14 Jun. 1978, Mutuelle générale française accident , Leb. 528 and see below, p. 126.

(¹³⁷) Below, pp. 322–5.

(¹³⁸) Art. 2262 C. civ.; Flour and Aubert, Rapport d’obligation, 300 .

(¹³⁹) Art. 110–4 C. com.

(¹⁴⁰) Flour and Aubert, Rapport d’obligation, 304 .

(¹⁴¹) Art. 2270–1 C. civ.

(¹⁴²) Art. 1648 C. civ., below, pp. 91–3.

(¹⁴³) Art. 1792 et seq. C. civ. below, p. 105.

(¹⁴⁴) Below, p. 320.

(¹⁴⁵) Below, p. 320.

(¹⁴⁶) Viney, Introduction à la responsabilité, 24 et seq. Cf. Flour, Aubert and Savaux, Fait juridique, 81 et seq. who accept the influence but appear less happy with the outcome.

(¹⁴⁷) This is not the case as regards the gardien of private motor vehicles: above, pp. 26, 60–1.

(¹⁴⁸) Above, p. 27.

(¹⁴⁹) Starck, Roland and Boyer, Responsabilité délictuelle, 46–7 .

(¹⁵⁰) Below, pp. 40–1.

(¹⁵¹) Malaurie, Aynès and Stoffel-Munck, Obligations, 12 .

(¹⁵²) E.g. delictual fault; causation; ‘defect’ in sale: below, pp. 44–5, 55 and 75–6 respectively.

(¹⁵³) Loi of 27 Feb. 1958 (now art. L. 211–1 C. assur.).

(¹⁵⁴) Lambert-Faivre, Droit des assurances, 16–17 .

(¹⁵⁵) Below, p. 104.

(¹⁵⁶) Bénabent, Obligations, 355, n. 10 sees Civ. (2) 19 Feb. 1997, D 1997.265 note Jourdain making parental liability even more strict as reflecting the practice of this insurance.

(¹⁵⁷) On this type of policy, see the Commission des clauses abusives, Recommendation No. 85–04 (6 Dec. 1985).

(¹⁵⁸) Since 1930 (loi of 13 Jul. 1930) a victim has been able to claim against a liability insurer directly, thereby avoiding any insolvency in the policy-holder: see now art. 124–3 C. assur; Lambert-Faivre, Droit du dommage corporel, 545 .

(¹⁵⁹) Below, p. 381.

(¹⁶⁰) F. Vincent, ‘Assurance de responsabilité des collectivités territoriales et de leurs élus’ Jur.-Cl. Adm., Fasc. 740, 3 .

(¹⁶¹) See CE 25 Sept. 1970, Tesson, D 1971.55 where Comm. gouv. M. Morisot noted that the defendant commune’s annual budget was smaller than the claimant’s damages, but had been supplemented by a special State grant.

(¹⁶²) P. Le Tourneau and L. Cadiet, Droit de la responsabilité et contrats (Dalloz, Paris, 2000) 77–8 .

(¹⁶³) Below, pp. 151–5.

(¹⁶⁴) Viney and Jourdain, Effets de la responsabilité, 780 et seq. Exceptions are made as regards members of the insured’s family or employees: art. L. 121–12 al. 3 C. assur.

(¹⁶⁵) CE 22 Nov. 1985, RGAT 1986.374. Cf., below, pp. 326–30.

(¹⁶⁶) Viney and Jourdain, Effets de la responsabilité, 784–5 interpreting art. 121–12 C. assur.

(¹⁶⁷) Crim. 3 Jun. 1992, Bull. crim. no. 218.

(¹⁶⁸) See below, p. 383.

(¹⁶⁹) Viney and Jourdain, Effets de la responsabilité, 787 .

(¹⁷⁰) Terré, Simler, Lequette, Obligations, 852 ; art L. 121–12 C. assur.

(¹⁷¹) Ibid.; art. L. 131–2 C. assur.

(¹⁷²) Viney, Introduction à la responsabilité, 41–6 .

(¹⁷³) The position was considerably clarified by the loi no. 85–677 of 5 Jul. 1985, arts. 28–34. For an example of such a fund, see the loi no. 91–1406 of 31 Dec. 1991 providing a special scheme for the transfusional victims of HIV, below, p. 316.

(¹⁷⁴) Art. L 376–1 al. 2 C. séc. soc. Viney and Jourdain, Effets de la responsabilité, 280 et seq. Where legislation creates a general immunity in a person otherwise liable (as in the case of accidents at work), any tiers payeurs cannot recover by way of subrogated claim.

(¹⁷⁵) Art. L 376–1 al. 3 C. séc. soc.

(¹⁷⁶) Below, Chaps. 12 and 13.