The recklessness of the victim does not exclude the responsibility of the owner of a dwelling

A person, drunk and under the influence of drugs, sits on the edge of a window of an apartment located at 5^e floor of a building, for smoking a cigarette. She dies by swinging in a vacuum. The victim's family and their insurer then take the owner of the apartment to court to compensate for the damage suffered.

After being rejected at first instance, the Court of Appeal upheld that judgment on the ground that

the mere reckless fault of the victim who caused his damage alone is an obstacle to the implementation of the liability of the guardian of the inert thing

.

Indeed, considering that the victim had been particularly reckless, for having sat under the influence of alcohol and narcotics on a window sill located at 5^e floor and without railing, without making sure that there was no risk of falling. The Court of Appeal concluded that recklessness was the only cause of the damage.

The applicants (family of the victim and their insurer) then decide to go before the Court of Cassation which quashes and quashes the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

After observing that the presence of a railing on a window situated at 5^e floor located 42 cm from the floor of the apartment would necessarily have prevented the fall, the Court of Cassation concludes that the recklessness of the victim could not be the sole cause of the damage.