Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T07:52:34.429Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Duty to Rescue in Civil Law and Common Law: Les Extremes Se Touchent

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

Martin Vranken
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The death of Diana, Princess of Wales, following a car accident in Paris on 31 August 1997, received worldwide media attention. The place of the accident as well as the circumstances thereof raise a number of legal questions. Of particular interest from a comparative tort law perspective are those aspects of the French enquiry that concern the civil implications of the criminal offence of failing to assist accident victims.2

Type
Shorter Articles, Comments and Notes
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 47 , Issue 4 , October 1998 , pp. 934 - 942
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. (“THE SIX QUESTIONED PHOTOGRAPHERS AND THE MOTORBIKE RIDER HAVE BEEN PLACED UNDER OFFICIAL INVESTIGATION. On Tuesday 2 September, the six photographers and the motorbike rider from the press questioned at the scene of the fatal accident of the Princess of Wales have been placed under official investigation for “involuntary manslaughter, involuntary wounding and non-assistance of persons in danger” by the Parisian investigating judge, Hervé Stephen, who released all of them having interviewed them on Tuesday afternoon”): Le Monde (édition Internationale, sélection hebdomadaire), Saturday 13 09 1997, p.4.Google Scholar

2. Also part of the official investigation in France is the suspicion of causing bodily harm, but this will not be discussed in this article.

3. Feinberg, J., “Failures to Prevent Harm—Easy Rescue and the Bad Samaritan”, in The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law. Vol.1: Harm to Others (1984), p.126 at p.127.Google Scholar

4. Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] A.C. 562Google Scholar; [1932] All E.R. 1.Google Scholar

5. [1969] V.R. 136.Google Scholar

6. idem, pp.140–141 (emph. added). Strictly speaking, this observation by Winneke CJ is dictum but, as it has been pointed out by Davies, it was expressly approved by Australia's High Court in State of Victoria v. Bryar [1970] A.L.R. 809Google Scholar: Davies, M., Tons (1995), p.175.Google Scholar

7. (1977) 138 C.L.R. 91.Google ScholarCf. Barnes v. Hampshire CC [1969] 3 All E.R. 746 (HL).Google Scholar

8. The expression is borrowed from Davies, op. cit. supra n.6, at p.174.Google Scholar

9. Robertson v. Swincer (1989) 52 S.A.S.R. 356, 360, 362.Google Scholar

10. See the discussion in Todd, S., “Negligence: The Duty of Care”, in Todd, S. T. M. (Ed.), The Law of Torts in New Zealand (1991), p.114 at p.132.Google Scholar

11. The exceptions are Vermont and Minnesota. They are the result of legislative intervention: Lipkin, R. J., “Beyond Good Samaritans and Moral Monsters: An Individualistic Justification of the General Legal Duty to Rescue” (1983–1984) U.C.L.A. L.Rev. 252, 253–254.Google Scholar

12. Ibid.

13. [1970] A.C. 1004, 1060.Google Scholar

14. [1997] 2 All E.R. 865, 878 (CA).Google Scholar

15. [1997] 3 All E.R. 897.Google Scholar

16. [1968] 1 All E.R. 1068.Google Scholar

17. See the analysis of foreign criminal provisions in Rudzinski, A. W., “The Duty to Rescue: A Comparative Analysis”, in Ratcliffe, J. M. (Ed.), The Good Samaritan and the Law (1966), p.91.Google Scholar

18. Law of 25 Oct. 1941, modifying Arts. 228 and 248 of the Penal Code. D. 1941, Législation 533. Belgium, a country in the French legal tradition, did not adopt legislation for the punishment of “culpable abstentions” (“abstentions coupables”) until 1961: Art.422bis of the Belgian Penal Code.

19. Tune, A., “The Volunteer and the Good Samaritan”, in Ratcliffe, op. cit. supra n.17, p.43 at p.44.Google Scholar

20. “The Failure to Rescue: A Comparative Study” (1952) 52 Col.L.Rev. 631, 640.Google Scholar

21. idem, p.639, n.63.

22. Trib. corr. Abbéville, 12 07 1943Google Scholar, J.C.P. 1944, II, 2624.Google Scholar

23. Op. cit. supra n.20, at p.640, n.66.Google Scholar The relevant part of the text in French reads as follows: “Sera puni … quiconque s'abstient volontairement de porter à une personne en péril l'assistance que. sans risque pour lui ni pours les tiers, il pouvait lui prêter. soil par son action personnelle, soil en provoquant un secours.” On criminal liability under Art.223–6 see also Bell, J., Boyron, S. and Whittaker, S., Principles of French Law (1998), p.219.Google Scholar

24. “grave, d'imminent et constant, nécessitant une intervention immédiate”: Cass. crim., 31 05 1949, D. 1949, 347Google Scholar; S. 1949, 1, 126Google Scholar; J.C.P. 1949, II, 4945.Google Scholar

25. TGI Paris, 20 11 1985, D. 1986, 369, note B. Calais.Google Scholar

26. Cass. crim., 26 04 1988, D. 1990, 479, note H. Fenaux.Google Scholar

27. Cass. crim., 23 04 1997, decision No.2185 (pourvoi No.96–83.239).Google Scholar

28. Cass. crim., 9 04 1997, decision No.1961bis (pourvoi No.96–84.431)Google Scholar: liability of school authorities; Cass. crim., 8 10 1997, decision No.5339 (pourvoi No.94–84.801); liability of foster-care organisations.Google Scholar

29. Cass. crim., 24 01 1995, D. 1996, 384, note F. Dekeuwer-Défossez and A. Waxin.Google Scholar

30. See e.g. Corr. Agen, 1 03 1991, D. 1992, somm. 70, note A. Prothais.Google Scholar

31. See Larroumet, C., note under Cass. civ., 13 12 1972, D. 1973, 493 at 494Google Scholar and the references there. For a general discussion see also Vranken, M., Fundamentals of European Civil Law (1997), chap.6. French administrative law recognises the liability of the State for failure to exercise police powers to put an end to an illegal action which is causing loss to another: Brown, L. N. and Bell, J., French Administrative Law (5th edn, 1998), p.198.Google Scholar

32. Prior to the above-discussed 1941 and 1945 legislation the question whether mere omissions could give rise to civil liability had been the subject of much discussion: Tune, , op. cit. supra n.19, at p.49.Google Scholar By contrast, the civil-law traditionally has had less difficulty in recognising that, where someone volunteers to come to the assistance of someone else, the former is entitled to compensation by application of the Roman law concept of negotiorum gestio. Initially, the emphasis was on the protection of economic interests only, though: Dawson, J. P., “Rewards for the Rescue of Human Life?”, in Ratcliffe, op. cit supra n.17, at p.63.Google Scholar

33. Cass. civ., 24 Dec. 1924, D. 1925, 120.Google Scholar

34. “If, pursuant to Articles 1382 and 1383 of the Civil Code, any human act whatever which causes harm to another creates an obligation for the person by whose fault it occurred to repair the damage, and if everyone is liable for their lack of care, an omission only triggers liability if the relevant person was under an obligation to do that which was not done”: idem, p.121 (emph. added).

35. See supra Section C.1.

36. Tune, A., “Abstention délictueuse”, para. 34 in D. nouveau rep. 1947, 8. as cited loc. cit. supra n.20.Google Scholar

37. See the discussion of criminal proceedings in Dadomo, C. and Farran, S., The French Legal System (2nd edn, 1996), pp.192et seq. and the discussion of the “action civile” on pp.201–203.Google Scholar

38. Cass. crim., 19 June. 1996, decision No.2822, Bull. crim. No.260; D. 1997, somm. 142, note J. PradelGoogle Scholar

39. (1991) 172 C.L.R. 243.Google Scholar

40. idem, p.254.

41. “either pursuant to a legal, regulatory or contractual obligation, or also, in the professional world involving, in particular, a historian, because of the requirement that informational data are objective”: Cass. civ. 27 02 1951, D. 1951, 329, note H. Desbois.Google Scholar

42. See the discussion supra Section B.

43. Cass. civ., 13 12, 1972, D. 1973, 493Google Scholar, note Larroumet. Other decisions that go against the grain include Cass. civ., 6 10 1960, D. 1960, 721Google Scholar; Cass. civ., 17 02 and 16 06 1961Google Scholar, J.C.P. 1962, III 12778Google Scholar; Cass. civ., 18 01 1963, D. 1963, somm. 94.Google Scholar

44. Larroumet, note, idem, p.494.

45. Terré, F.. Simler, Ph. and Lequette, Y., Droit civil, Les obligations (6th edn, 1996), pp.566–568.Google Scholar

46. idem, pp.566–567.

47. Cass. civ., 3 12 1968, D. 1969, 253. note P. CouvratGoogle Scholar

48. Cass. civ., 31 01 1964Google Scholar, J.C.P. 1964, II, 13620, note R. Savatier. The result in this case may be contrasted with the decision in Branly, discussed supra n.41 and text.Google Scholar

49. Cass. civ., 6 06, 1966, D. 1966, 481, note J. Voulet.Google Scholar

50. “la conduite d'un individu avisé”: Voulet, note, idem, p.482.

51. Terré, Simler and Lequette, op. cit. supra n.45, at p.566, No.689.Google Scholar