KudoZ home » French to English » Law (general)

responsabilité du fait des choses

English translation: liability for damage or injury caused by things in one's care

Advertisement

Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.

You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs
(or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.
GLOSSARY ENTRY (DERIVED FROM QUESTION BELOW)
French term or phrase:responsabilité du fait des choses
English translation:liability for damage or injury caused by things in one's care
Entered by: Dr Andrew Read
Options:
- Contribute to this entry
- Include in personal glossary

23:03 Apr 5, 2004
French to English translations [PRO]
Law/Patents - Law (general)
French term or phrase: responsabilité du fait des choses
Is there a standard translation for this phrase? Or is there an English translation of the French code civil accessible online? (I guess not, based on other questions I've asked.) Here's the context, anyway:

"Brief summary of the facts
Alors qu’elle accompagnait sa mère, la victime voulut descendre du train au moment où celui-ci amorçait son départ et commençait à rouler. Pour ce faire, elle empêcha de force la porte de se refermer. Malgré les avertissements de son mari, resté sur le quai, qui lui conseillait de rester à bord, elle sauta du train en marche et se blessa. Elle assigna la SNCF en réparation de son dommage, sur la base de la *responsabilité du fait des choses* (art. 1384 al. 1 du Code civil)."
Dr Andrew Read
United Kingdom
Local time: 21:34
liability for damage caused by things in one's care
Explanation:
Someone has it right in his or her answer in French. "Chose" is generally considered an inanimate object (as opposed to, say, an animal) and the statute excludes such "things" as decrepit buildings that fall on your head due to lack of maintenance. You'll find all you want to know (and more) at http://www.chez.com/jurisfac/prive/civil/c18civil2.htm
Selected response from:

lenkl
Local time: 22:34
Grading comment
Lenkl, you win again. This described what is meant most closely and my client in France liked it. I also included the French term in italics.
4 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer

Advertisement


Summary of answers provided
5 +1responsibility due to a factual situation
Hacene
4 +1liability for damage caused by things in one's care
lenkl
4occupier's liabilityxxxKirstyMacC
3 +1res ipsa loquiturxxxACOZ
3liability as ownersBOB DE DENUS
2strict liability (with footnote)
Peter Freckleton
2responsibility...by the very nature of the act.
Robert Frankling


Discussion entries: 1





  

Answers


12 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 2/5Answerer confidence 2/5
responsabilité du fait des choses
responsibility...by the very nature of the act.


Explanation:
..."by the very nature of"...a common expression

Robert Frankling
Local time: 15:34
Native speaker of: English
PRO pts in category: 120
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

19 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 3/5Answerer confidence 3/5
responsabilité du fait des choses
liability as owners


Explanation:
On the basis of their liability as owners

responsabilité du fait des choses n f
Fait d'avoir à répondre du dommage causé par les choses que l'on a sous sa garde.

Syn.
responsabilité des choses que l'on a sous sa garde n f


BOB DE DENUS
Local time: 06:34
Works in field
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish, Native in FrenchFrench
PRO pts in category: 4

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
neutral  NatalieD: If you have something "sous sa garde" (in your custody), it does not necessarily mean you're the owner.
2 hrs

neutral  lenkl: Liability as owner is at once broader and more restrictive. For instance, you can own something that is in the care of someone else, who would then be the liable party under that particular statute
7 hrs
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

21 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 3/5Answerer confidence 3/5 peer agreement (net): +1
res ipsa loquitur


Explanation:
Literally, "the thing speaks for itself". Definition in the Oxford Dictionary of Law: If an accident has occurred of a kind that usually only happens if someone has been negligent, and the state of affairs that produced the accident was under the control of the defendant, it may be presumed in the absence of evidence that the accident was caused by the defendant's negligence". I think this may be the phrase you're looking for.

xxxACOZ
Australia
Local time: 06:04
Specializes in field
Native speaker of: English
PRO pts in category: 106

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree  xxxKirstyMacC: A clever inference, though res ipsa is a rule of evidence and not a head of liability in the Eng. law of tort. It reverses the 'burden of proof' on to French Rail as defendant who would have to prove - in Fr law ? - it's been NON-negligent.
10 hrs
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

22 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5
occupier's liability


Explanation:
i.e. statutory and in the law of tort for dangerous premises and trespassers etc.

The UK Occupier's Liability Acts 1957 and 1984 deal with the common duty of care owed to visitors and trespassers e.g. Brit. Railways Board v. Herrington (1972).

FHS Bridge's FR>EN Law Glossary comes up with the puzzling trans: 'liability for damage (injury?) caused by things in one's charge' - which would suggest product liability - rather than other unpleasant things that may come raining down on a rail passenger -> see
the weblink law report: '... Pigeon droppings — Feral pigeons roosting under railway bridge — Pigeon ... OCCUPIER'S LIABILITY, Trespasser — Hidden hazard — Adult trespasser diving into ...'




    Reference: http://www.lawreports.co.uk/ca-civnewN-Q.htm
xxxKirstyMacC
Local time: 21:34
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish
PRO pts in category: 213

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
neutral  lenkl: The statute's language is unambiguous. The question of whether the claimant has a case under it is another matter. Did the door malfunction? Let the court decide.
9 hrs
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

7 hrs   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5 peer agreement (net): +1
responsabilité du fait des choses
liability for damage caused by things in one's care


Explanation:
Someone has it right in his or her answer in French. "Chose" is generally considered an inanimate object (as opposed to, say, an animal) and the statute excludes such "things" as decrepit buildings that fall on your head due to lack of maintenance. You'll find all you want to know (and more) at http://www.chez.com/jurisfac/prive/civil/c18civil2.htm

lenkl
Local time: 22:34
Works in field
PRO pts in category: 100
Grading comment
Lenkl, you win again. This described what is meant most closely and my client in France liked it. I also included the French term in italics.

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
neutral  xxxKirstyMacC: Yes. I quote the def. from FHS Bridge. But WHO has the train door in his/its 'care'? -> 1. the railway co. 2. ticket inspector on the train 3. station manager(ess) 4. woman rail passenger or back on the platform 5. her husband or 6. the railway guard etc.
2 hrs
  -> She (or her lawyer) obviously thinks it's the SNCF. Liability can be hard to prove in France and the choice of statutes under which to sue is not for us mere translators to approve or disapprove.

agree  JackieMcC: definitely the most accurate translation IMHO
1 day59 mins
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

35 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 5/5 peer agreement (net): +1
responsabilité du fait des choses
responsibility due to a factual situation


Explanation:
http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/government/c_code.ht...
http://www.llrx.com/features/frenchlaw.htm
http://www.lawbookexchange.com/jan04/law-books-jan04-2a.html item N046
these links are for further help, the 2 below for the information specific to this question

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 12 hrs 47 mins (2004-04-06 11:50:39 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

sorry, the last link does not work anymore (it was yesterday)
http://wwws.wfu.edu/~palmitar/Courses/ComparativeLaw/CourseR...




    Reference: http://lawlibrary.ucdavis.edu/LAWLIB/july00/0167.html
    Reference: http://wwws.wfu.edu/~palmitar/Courses/ComparativeLaw/CourseR...
Hacene
United Kingdom
Local time: 21:34
Native speaker of: Native in FrenchFrench
PRO pts in category: 28

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree  Vicky Papaprodromou
37 mins
  -> cheers Vicky

neutral  lenkl: Very good sources, including at least one (UC Davis) which gives a good translation. Why didn't you use it?
7 hrs
  -> cheers, but not satisfying in this context
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

6 days   confidence: Answerer confidence 2/5Answerer confidence 2/5
strict liability (with footnote)


Explanation:
Seems to cover several heads of liability - e.g. occupier's liability, Rylands v. Fletcher, product liability, nuisance.
A precise corresponding term is hard to find, hence my suggestion of a less specific phrase with explanation.

Liability here is apparently not dependent on negligence, so that the plaintiff's conduct does not necessarily provide a defence.



Peter Freckleton
Australia
Local time: 06:34
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish
PRO pts in category: 59
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)




Return to KudoZ list


KudoZ™ translation help
The KudoZ network provides a framework for translators and others to assist each other with translations or explanations of terms and short phrases.



See also:



Term search
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search