As a result what lawyers call autonomy of civil fault i

Designed to reduce directed prosecutions against elected officials or public servants while avoiding the contrition of the social actors, Act 10 July 2000 Fauchon has fulfilled its role After six years of experience, the time has come to recall the main aspects of the unintentional responsibility.

In break from the principles which inspired previously article 121-3 of the Penal Code, while now the principle that "there is point of crime or offence without the intention to commit", the Fauchon Act introduced two paragraphs related to the faults of negligence or imprudence. This change resulted in a difference in regime between the liability of legal persons and natural persons. Slight fault of an employee is likely to lead to the conviction of the company, while itself may escape. It is thus, for example, with regard to questions of procedure: the facts may be pardoned for an individual and not the company, or give rise to a nullity which does not extend to the entire file. But especially, in contrast to the company incurs automatic criminal liability, the individual may be relaxed if the fault is not characterized. However, the criteria differ according to whether the causation is direct or indirect. The indirect cause of the damage is the result of an action or omission, without which the accident could occur, but that was not foreseeable. These are all facts having "created or contributed to the situation which allowed the realization of the damage" and the assumptions which were not taken the measures which would have to avoid it. Scope because it concerns all the obligations of security, hygiene and compliance with regulations. However, the responsibility of the individual is not incurred in 3 assumptions: that where the causal link is uncertain, when the health of the victim prior to the fault was cause of the damage and in the case where the causal effect was broken by a fortuitous external event finally. Thus, the offence is constituted in its regard, must be that the employee has, either deliberately breached a duty of care or security provided by the Act or the regulations, either committed a fault characterized of a particular severity that he could not ignore.

Conversely, the direct fault is called immediately in all cases of direct contact between the author and the victim: it is the case of traffic accidents. It is termed adequate when the damage as a result was likely, thus, for example, the retention of a platform that we know corroded with embowed under the weight of a worker. Are also adequate successive mistakes and assumptions that involved a decision to failure or forbearance, such as to postpone surgery.

Companies exposed

Fauchon is therefore relatively lenient as regards indirect fault. But in return, a procedural consequence is often forgotten: the criminal fault required in the case of indirect causation to criminally convict an individual is now distinct from the civil fault of recklessness or negligence required for the establishment of civil liability. As a result, what lawyers call "autonomy of civil fault", i.e. the fact that, by exception, and this assumption only, criminal negligence is not identical to civil fault. Thus, the release of the head of an unintentional offence for indirect misconduct does not preclude the victim to claim compensation for damage in the civil courts on the basis of civil fault. It does not exclude action tending to establish the inexcusable fault of the employer on the basis of article l. 452 - 1 of the Code of social security for the purpose of compensating the victim of an accident at work or an occupational disease.

Act Fauchon was in priority public decision makers who, because of the old wording of article 121-1 of the Penal Code, were often the object of wrongful convictions from their personal involvement, negligence alleged is even sometimes those of their predecessors. Undoubtedly, the decline in six years showed that the Act had reached its goal: the responsibility of the individual is more incurred automatically.

It is that Parliament intended to facilitate the prosecution of legal persons does applying not distinctions related to its direct or indirect causation. Extension since January 1, 2006, of criminal liability to all offences exposes companies for all work accidents, damage to the environment or the offences of homicide or unintentional injuries.