Become major he decided to act in justice

Member of the Hockey association ice Yonnais (Hogly), Florent (16) participates in a meeting against the association of ice of Angers (GaAs). Whereas in order to reach the Palace with his butt, fall forward on the ice, leading to a member of the opposing team falling on the back. The two players slip. On the belly, Florent, trapped in the body of the other sports, cannot protect his head hitting the railing of the rink. It is seriously injured. Become major, he decided to act in justice. It assigns liability Hogly and GaAs clubs and their respective insurers: the mutual national sport - become mutual of athletes whose liability is guaranteed by Riviera insurance property and casualty - and the General mutual insurance fund. On 4 February 2003, the Court of appeal of Poitiers confirms the judgment: Hogly (club which Florent was a member) and azure are required, in solidum, to compensate the harm suffered by Florent integer.

Security, beyond the imposed rules

The hockey club and the insurer appealed in cassation. They argue a violation of article 1147 of the civil code relating to contractual liability. "The debtor is condemned, if applicable, the payment of damages, or for breach of duty ..." "all the time that it does not breach comes from a foreign cause which cannot be imputed to him, although there is no bad time on his part", is the text. In this case, challenging the duo, the Court of Appeal found that Hogly had respected the safety obligations imposed by sports bodies and posed the protections of type fillets or bands of foam would be both to create a danger to players and likely to distort the game. How, therefore, judged that the club failed in its duty of security "Only compliance with safety requirements laid down by sports bodies is insufficient to relieve his duties security association, approves the Court of cassation on 16 April 2006 (CIV. 1, n 03-12537).". "Beyond of strict compliance with the requirements of sports, there is the responsibility of associations an obligation of prudence and diligence". The appeal decision does not merely to note that the installation of protective nets at the meeting was insufficient, he pointed out that there are technical alternatives recent and satisfactory, both for the exercise of the sport for the safety of the players. Well, Hogly breached his contractual duty of security.

The limit of the rules of the game

Critical Florent him also the appeal decision. The opposing club (GaAs) and his insurer should also be included in the roster of officials sentenced to repair his injury. The Court of appeal here refused to apply article 1384 paragraph 1 of the civil code, critical, while the civil liability of the GaAs is of right on account of its player who participated directly in the realization of the accident. And, at the meeting, it was under his control, its authority and its leadership. "Sports associations, whose purpose is to organize, direct and control the activity of their members during trainings and competitions in which they participate, are responsible for right that damage that they cause by their fault characterized by a violation of the rules of the game", corrects the Court of cassation.

The appeal decision set out the circumstances of the accident. It notes that the game was free of violence or misbehaviour. As a result, that no aggression or malice, that no breach of the rules of the sport, are characterized. The GaAs responsibility cannot be accepted.