## Facts

- A minor, Lise Jand’heur, was struck and injured by a truck owned by Société anonyme Aux Galeries Belfortaises on April 22, 1926.
- The child’s mother, acting on her behalf, sought compensation based on the rule imposing liability on the person with custody (*garde*) of an inanimate thing that causes harm.
- The defendant was treated as custodian (*gardien*) of the truck as owner and controller of its use.

## Issues

1. Whether liability for damage caused by an inanimate thing rests on an autonomous presumption against the custodian, rather than on proof of the driver’s or custodian’s fault.
2. Whether the presumption applies even when the thing was being operated by a person and even absent proof of an inherent defect in the thing.
3. What defenses suffice to rebut the presumption of liability for damage caused by a thing.

## Decision

- The high court quashed the court of appeal’s judgment and remanded for reconsideration under the correct liability framework.
- It held that the governing provision creates an autonomous presumption of liability against the custodian of an inanimate thing that caused harm.
- It rejected the appellate rule requiring the victim to prove driver fault merely because the vehicle was moving under human direction.
- It ruled that absence of fault, or uncertainty about the precise cause of the accident, does not defeat the presumption.

## Legal Principles

- The custodian (*gardien*) of an inanimate thing is presumed liable when that thing causes damage to another.
- The presumption does not depend on showing an inherent defect in the thing; liability is tied to custody/control (*garde*), not to proof of vice in the object.
- The presumption applies whether or not the thing was being actuated or guided by human action at the time of the harm.
- The presumption is rebutted only by proof of a fortuitous event, force majeure, or an external cause not attributable to the custodian.
- The plaintiff’s burden is to show the thing’s causal role in the damage and identify its custodian; the custodian bears the burden of exoneration on the limited grounds above.

## Conclusion

The court established a general, custody-based presumption of liability for harm caused by things, disallowing defenses based merely on lack of fault or unknown causation and limiting exoneration to force majeure or an equivalent external cause.


Veuve Jand’heur v. Société anonyme Aux Galeries Belfortaises, Cass. ch. réunies, D.P. 1930. I. 57 (Fr. 1930)