Unusual neighborhood turmoil: full liability of current owner-insurance

The theory of anomalous neighborhood disability, which has long been considered as a variation of personal responsibility, now has an independent foundation, and the Court of Cassation “the principle that it should not cause anomalous neighborhood disability to others.” Aiming for (Civ.2)When, November 19, 1986, No. 84-16.379). This system of responsibility is “objective”. That is, it is not based on evidence of misbehavior on the part of the author of the damage. Only the presence of obstructions beyond the usual inconvenience is expected in the following situations: Neighborhood relations. This is specifically assessed by the judge, taking into account the specific circumstances of the alleged victim (see R. Bigot and A. Cayol). The law of civil liability in the table, Settings P. Brun, Ellipses, 2022, Coming Soon, p. 204). Therefore, just because there is no fault, we cannot escape the criticism (Civ. 3).When, February 4th. 1971, No. 69-12.528). At the same time, the presence of disability does not necessarily cause anomalous disturbances in the neighborhood: judges still need to characterize anomalous anomalies (Civ.2).WhenMarch 24, 2016, no. 15-13.306). The objective nature of this system of responsibility was reaffirmed by the Third Civil Council on March 16, 2022.

In this case, the pavilion user declared a “flood” claim to the insurance company and sued the current owner of the adjacent pavilion and its predecessor, based on the theory of anomalous neighborhood turmoil. Work required by infiltration and payment of damages. The Court of Appeals declares that the current owner is liable on the basis of the above theory at a rate of 60% of the disability affecting the plaintiff’s pavilion. In addition, the latter alleged to the insurance company that “a harmful event is what causes damage, in this case a leak in the network of buried pipes in M’s property.” Reject with. And Mmyself F, its origins date back to 1997 and 2005. In other words, it is before January 25, 2007, which is the effective date of multi-risk home insurance ”(Point 13). Also, the general terms of the insurance policy do not cover the damage caused by the pipeline buried in the insured, which is a non-warranty clause and must comply with the format established by Article L. I am also considering that there is no insurance. 112-Insurance code 4 (pt 18).

These three points are being contested by neighbors in the Court of Cassation’s complaint.

The objective nature of responsibility that results from anomalous neighborhood turmoil

Neighbors first and foremost claim that “the seller is responsible for the anomalous neighborhood turmoil caused by the building sold prior to the transfer. By belonging to the sole purchaser, the Court of Appeals itself. G’s spouse inevitably took part in the damage thus caused by G’s spouse, who was responsible for the anomalous obstruction of the neighborhood, which reported that the first obstacle was due to the escape “dating back to 1997 and 2005”. The Court of Appeals, which did not bring about the legal consequences of its own investigations when it owned the property in such a way that it had to bear the burden, violated the principle for some reason. Over time, it does not cause anomalous neighborhood confusion for others “(pt7). The Court of Cassation believes that the plea is unfounded. In the recital of the principle, “Actions based on anomalous disturbances in the neighborhood are actions in non-contractual civil liability that allow the victim to seek compensation from the owner of the building, regardless of any negligence.” I affirm. The cause of the trouble, full responsibility “(pt 8), and the fact that they did not own this land at the time, concluding that the responsibility of their neighbors should be retained …