Traffic accident: the assessment of the involvement of a vehicle.

Mentioned in Article 1 of Law 85-677 of 5 July 1985, "involvement" appears to be one of the essential components of the compensation scheme for victims of traffic accidents.

However, while the involvement of a land motor vehicle which has come into contact with the seat of the damage poses (a priori) few difficulties, the assessment of its involvement in the absence of contact generates major uncertainties.

Indeed, it is now settled case-law that the land motor vehicle in contact with the seat of the damage is necessarily involved, whether the latter is stationary, even when parked, or moving. (Cass. 2nd civ., 25 Jan. 1995- Court of Cassation, 2nd civil chamber, 30 April 2014 - n° 13-16.291)

However, the absence of contact does not preclude recognition of the involvement of a vehicle (Cass. crim., 30 Oct. 1989.).

The vehicle's "any role" or "involvement in any way" in the accident was then considered.

Thus, even if the mere presence of a vehicle at the scene of the accident is not sufficient to establish its involvement (Civ. 2e, 25 May 1994, No. 92-19.200 - Civ. 2e, 13 Dec. 2012, No. 11-19.696.), the latter is recognised as soon as the vehicle played a disruptive role.

For example, it was possible to retain the involvement of an overtaken vehicle, travelling at a very reduced speed and encroaching on the roadway, despite the absence of contact with the seat of the damage. (Civ. 2e, 18 Apr. 2019, No. 18-14.948.).

More than contact, it is the causal role, broadly understood, that seems to determine the involvement of a vehicle in a traffic accident.

In this sense, the 2nd civil chamber of the Court of Cassation issued on January 16, 2020, a ruling that further dispels the shadows regarding the involvement of a vehicle in the absence of contact.

In this case, the mother and sister of a victim of a traffic accident, summoned the owner and driver of a tractor on the grounds of his involvement within the meaning of Article 1 of Law No. 85-677 of 5 July 1985, the latter having played a role in the accident.

The victim had skidded on the slippery roadway due to the presence of oil, unintentionally spilled by the tractor due to a leak.

The owner of the tractor and its driver complained to the decision of the civil division of the Court of Appeal of Saint-Denis of 20 April 2018 that they were jointly and severally liable to compensate the victim for the tractor's involvement in the accident.

It is therefore by a judgment dated 16 January 2020 that the Court of Cassation (Cass. 2e., 16 Jan. 2020, n° 18-23.787, P+B+I) confirmed the Court of Appeal without its assessment of the involvement of the tractor, by dismissing the appeal.

"(...) But having exactly recalled, on the grounds adopted, that is involved, within the meaning of Article 1 of Law No 85-677 of 5 July 1985, any vehicle having played any role in the occurrence of an accident and then found that Z's vehicle had skidded on the roadway made slippery by the presence of oil "involuntarily spilled" by the tractor driven by Mr X, the Court of Appeal (...) rightly deduced that the tractor was involved in the accident.

It should be noted here that the Court makes a literal appreciation of the notion of "any role" already identified in previous case law.

Thus "involvement", a term intended to be broad by the legislator, is assessed in favour of the victim, and seems to be retained as soon as a vehicle plays a "role", of whatever nature, in the occurrence of the accident.

Défaut de dépôt des comptes: responsabilité personnelle du dirigeant

Par Maîtres Florent DE FRANCESCHI et Grégory DAMY

Selon l’article L 123-12 du Code de commerce, tout commerçant doit établir des comptes annuels à la clôture de l’exercice. En ce qui concerne les sociétés commerciales, l’obligation de tenir des comptes annuels résulte de l’article L. 232-1 du code de commerce.

Ces comptes annuels comprennent généralement le bilan, le compte de résultat et une annexe. Ces documents doivent être réguliers, sincères et donner une image fidèle du patrimoine, de la situation financière et du résultat de l’entreprise.

Les comptes annuels doivent donc être approuvés lors d’une assemblée générale ordinaire. Cette assemblée doit être tenue dans les 6 mois qui suivent la date de clôture de l’exercice social.

Le dirigeant doit donc payer pour effectuer la formalité de dépôt des comptes annuels. A défaut, le Code de commerce prévoit des sanctions.

L’article L. 611-2 II dispose que si les dirigeants ne déposent pas leurs comptes annuels dans les délais prévus par les textes applicables, le président du tribunal peut leur adresser une injonction de le faire à bref délai sous astreinte.

En pratique, le Président du Tribunal de commerce rend une ordonnance faisant injonction au représentant légal de la personne morale de déposer les comptes annuels dans un délai d'un mois à compter de la notification ou de la signification de l'ordonnance, sous peine d'astreinte

Le greffier du Tribunal de commerce notifie alors l'ordonnance au représentant légal de la personne morale.

En cas d'inexécution de l'injonction qu'il a délivrée, le Président du Tribunal statue sur la liquidation de l'astreinte, c’est-à-dire qu’il va condamner le dirigeant social à payer cette astreinte.

La Cour de cassation a récemment jugé « que lorsque le président d'un tribunal de commerce, ayant enjoint sous astreinte au représentant légal d'une personne morale de déposer les comptes annuels, constate le défaut d'exécution et liquide l'astreinte, le représentant légal est condamné à titre personnel… » (Cour de cassation – Chambre commerciale – 7 mai 2019 – n° 17-21.047).

En cas de défaut de dépôt des comptes annuels, c’est donc le dirigeant social qui engage sa responsabilité. Il sera condamné à titre personnel et devra acquitter l’astreinte sur ses propres deniers.

Le dirigeant social recevra alors un titre de perception de la part de la Direction Générale des Finances Publiques qui est en charge du recouvrement de l’astreinte.

Si l’ordonnance du Tribunal fixant une astreinte ne peut pas être contestée, la décision liquidant l’astreinte peut l’être. Cette Ordonnance doit être adressée par voie de courrier recommandé avec accusé de réception. En pratique, ces décisions ne sont pas adressées de cette manière et encore moins signifiées par voie d’huissier de justice. Notre cabinet d’avocats sur Nice pourra vous aider à remettre en cause les titres de perception fondés sur des astreintes fréquemment contestables.

Thomas Cook or the fall of the world's oldest tour operator

On Monday, September 23, 2019, the travel giant, Thomas Cook, declared bankruptcy and ceased all commercial activity.

Not having been able to raise the nearly 200 million pounds necessary for its survival, Thomas Cook had to give up. The British government refused to help him.

As the company's debt is not negligible (we are talking about about 1.7 billion pounds), creditors have lost patience. It has been the victim of fierce competition from low-cost tour operators that can be found on the Internet when it had existed since 1840.

This drop not only leads to 22,000 employees worldwide but also to 600,000 tourists currently on holiday, 10,000 of whom are French. A priori, all these holidaymakers should be repatriated safely in the coming days on other airlines since the company's aircraft are grounded (about a hundred). Fortunately, there is a solidarity fund included in the cost of travel to prevent these situations.

It is likely that the group's subsidiaries, particularly the French one, will be able to continue their activity until they are sold.

If you encounter any difficulties following the purchase of a Thomas Cook trip, do not hesitate to contact us.