## Facts

- At night, an automobile driven by Mr. Desmares struck and injured Mr. and Mrs. Charles while they were crossing the street.
- The injured pedestrians sued Desmares as keeper (guardian) of the vehicle and sued his liability insurer, La Mutualité Industrielle, seeking compensation under Civil Code article 1384(1) (liability for damage caused by things in one’s custody).
- The driver and insurer argued that the pedestrians were at fault because they were allegedly crossing outside the protected pedestrian crossing; they relied in part on an eyewitness account and physical traces (including bloodstains reported several meters beyond the marked crossing).
- The trial court found liability under article 1384(1) but reduced the award due to the Charleses’ contributory negligence.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeal (Reims) placed responsibility entirely on Desmares and did not reduce damages based on the pedestrians’ conduct.
- Desmares and La Mutualité Industrielle petitioned for review in the Cour de cassation, claiming that victim fault should at least partially exonerate the vehicle’s keeper.

## Issues

1. Under Civil Code article 1384(1), can the keeper of a motor vehicle obtain partial exoneration by proving the victim’s fault, or is any exoneration available only if the victim’s conduct has the characteristics of force majeure (or cas fortuit)?
2. Did the pedestrians’ alleged conduct (crossing at night and possibly outside the marked crosswalk) amount to force majeure so as to relieve the keeper and insurer from liability in whole or in part?

## Decision

- The Cour de cassation rejected the appeal and affirmed the judgment holding Desmares and his insurer fully liable.
- The court held that, under article 1384(1), the keeper is exonerated only by force majeure (or cas fortuit) or an equivalent external cause; the victim’s mere fault, even if it contributed to the damage, does not exonerate the keeper, even partially, unless it is unforeseeable and irresistible.
- Because the Court of Appeal’s findings did not establish victim conduct that was unforeseeable and irresistible, there was no basis to reduce liability.

## Legal Principles

- Under Civil Code article 1384(1), once a thing under a person’s custody is involved in causing damage, the keeper is presumed liable.
- The keeper avoids liability only by proving an exonerating cause such as force majeure/cas fortuit or an act of a third party with the same qualities.
- The victim’s conduct can exonerate the keeper only if it has the characteristics of force majeure—especially unforeseeability and irresistibility.
- Ordinary contributory negligence by the victim does not justify apportionment or a partial reduction of the keeper’s liability under article 1384(1).

## Conclusion

The Cour de cassation confirmed full liability for the driver/keeper and his insurer, ruling that in article 1384(1) “things” liability, victim fault reduces or eliminates the keeper’s liability only when the victim’s conduct qualifies as force majeure (unforeseeable and irresistible); otherwise, there is no partial exoneration.


La Mutualité Industrielle v. Epoux Charles, Cass. civ. 2d (July 21, 1982), 1982 D.J. 449 (1982)