Posted on by Stephen Tuck

Atlanta National League Baseball Club v FF & Ors (2014) H&FLR 2014-43

Atlanta National League Baseball Club v FF & Ors (2014) H&FLR 2014-42

Georgia Court of Appeals

11 July 2014

Coram: Barnes PJ, Boggs and Branch JJ

Appearing for the Appellant: The Hon Leah Ward Sears and Mr Ronald Gaither (of Schiff Hardin LLP) and Mr Bradley Wolff and Ms Pamela Lee (of Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hiers LLP)
Appearing for the Respondent: Mr Matthew Dwyer (of Dwyer Law Group), Messrs Peter Law and Michael Moran (both of Law & Moran) and Ms Amanda Evans.

Catchwords: Georgia – baseball – infant plaintiff – foul ball – injury – baseball rule – declaratory judgment – negligence

Facts: The plaintiff, a six year old girl, attended a baseball game at the home ground of the Atlanta Braves. While sitting in a part of the stadium behind the visitors’ dugout, she was hit in the head by a foul ball, suffering serious injuries. By her litigation guardian, she issued proceedings against the defendant for negligence.

The defendant applied for a declaratory judgment as to the applicable standard of care under Georgia’s Declaratory Judgment Act, which relevantly provides (OCGA §9-4-2) that –

(a) In cases of actual controversy, the … superior courts of this state shall have power, upon … appropriate pleading, to declare rights and other legal relations of any interested party petitioning for such declaration …; and the declaration shall have the force and effect of a final judgment … and be reviewable as such.

(b) In addition …, the … superior courts of this state shall have power, upon … appropriate pleading, to declare rights and other legal relations of any interested party petitioning for the declaration … in any civil case in which it appears to the court that the ends of justice require that the declaration should be made; and the declaration shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree and be reviewable as such.

The court denied the application: FF v Atlanta National League Baseball Club (Fulton County State Court, Porter J, 3 January 2013, unreported). The defendant sought interlocutory review of the denial, arguing that the trial court should have declared that the ‘baseball rule’* formed part of the law of Georgia.

Held: Dismissing the application, that a party seeking a declaratory judgment must show that it is necessary in order to relieve the party of the risk of taking action that, without direction, would jeopardise their interests. It is not available where the parties rights and liabilities have already accrued. In this case, the event giving rise to the defendant’s putative liability had already occurred. The declaratory judgment process would not be an appropriate means of testing the defence that their duty of care was met by observing the requirements of the ‘baseball rule’.

Thomas v Atlanta Casualty Co, 253 Ga. App. 199, 588 SE.2d 432 (2001) and Porter v Houghton, 273 Ga. 407, 542 SE.2d 491 (2001), followed.

Judgment

The Court’s judgment is available here.

=====================================

* As to which, see South Shore Baseball LLC v DeJesus (2014) H&FLR 2014-39 and Coomer v Kansas City Royals (2014) H&FLR 2014-41

Posted on by Stephen Tuck

Leddin v R (2014) H&FLR 2014-42

Eamonn Francis Leddin v The Queen (2014) H&FLR 2014-42

Victorian Court of Appeal

22 July 2014

Coram: Weinberg, Whelan and Beach JJA

Appearing for the Appellant: Mr J McLoughlin (instructed by Victoria Legal Aid)
Appearing for the Respondent: Ms F L Dalziel (instructed by the Office of Public Prosecutions)

Catchwords: Victoria – cyclist – death – culpable driving – daydreaming – sentencing – manifestly excessive

Facts: On 7 April 2011 at about 11:00am the applicant (then aged 19), driving a car, struck a cyclist. The road on which both were travelling was straight with a 100kph (≈ 60mph) speed limit. The weather was fine and visibility good. Roughly half a kilometer before the accident scene was a sign warning of the presence of cyclists. The deceased was an experienced 47 year old cyclist wearing a high-visibility top.  The defendant’s evidence was that while he had seen the sign warning of cyclists and also the cyclist herself, after doing so he had lost concentration and begun to daydream. There was no evidence that he was drugged or intoxicated, distracted by a mobile phone or speeding. There was no clear evidence that he had fallen asleep or been over-tired.

Significant delay by the prosecution resulted in the defendant not being charged with culpable driving causing death (Crimes Act 1958, §318) until January 2013. On 4 December 2013 he pleaded guilty to this charge and was sentenced to 4 years and 3 months imprisonment, to serve a minimum of 2 years and 3 months: Director of Public Prosecutions v Leddin (County Court of Victoria, Judge Taft, 19 December 2013, unreported). The defendant appealed on the basis that the sentence and non-parole period were manifestly excessive

Held: Dismissing the appeal, that –

1. Serious driving offences tend to be committed by young drivers. Because of this, an offender’s youth must be given less weight than might otherwise be the case in considering sentence in these matters

Director of Public Prosecutions v Neethling (2009) 22 VR 466, approved.

2. The maximum penalty for the charged offence is 20 years’ imprisonment. A case would need to be ‘truly exceptional’ for a sentence of 4 years and 3 months to be manifestly excessive. The delay in the prosecution and the absence of speeding, intoxication and disobeying traffic signals did potentially render the matter unusual. On the other hand, there was genuine culpability in the defendant’s failure to avoid a collision with a cyclist despite having seen both her and a warning sign concerning cyclists generally.

Director of Public Prosecutions v Neethling (2009) 22 VR 466; Director of Public Prosecutions v Hill (2012) 223 A Crim R 285; and R v Sherpa (2001) 34 MVR 345, considered.

Judgment

The Court’s judgment is available here.

Posted on by Stephen Tuck

Coomer v Kansas City Royals (2014) H&FLR 2014-41

John Coomer v Kansas City Royals Baseball Corporation (2014) H&FLR 2014-41

Supreme Court of Missouri

24 June 2014

Coram: Court en banc (Judgment by Wilson J)

Appearing for the Appellant: Robert Tormohlen (of Lewis, Rice & Fingersh)
Appearing for the Respondent: Scott D. Hofer (of Foland, Wickens, Eisfelder, Roper & Hofer, PC )

Catchwords: Missouri – baseball – mascot – hotdog toss – baseball rule – injury – negligence – assumption of risk – inherent risk

Facts: On 8 September 2009 the plaintiff attended a baseball game at Kauffman Stadium between the Kansas City Royals and the Detroit Tigers. Since 2000 a feature of Royals’ home games has been the practice of their mascott (“Sluggerrr“)* tossing hotdogs to members of the crowd. The plaintiff saw Sluggerrr commence throwing hotdogs. He turned to look at the scoreboard and at that moment was hit in the face by a hotdog, causing injury to his left eye.

He commenced proceedings against the defendant alleging negligence and battery. A jury in the trial court returned a finding of no negligence: Coomer v Kansas City Royals Baseball Corporation (2011), The Pitch Blog, 9 March 2011. The plaintiff appealed.

Held: Allowing the appeal –

1. An implied primary assumption of risk by a plaintiff can be identified from their conduct and the surrounding circumstances, including whether a risk is inherent to the activity. Where this has occurred, a plaintiff who knowingly and voluntarily encounters that risk is barred from seeking compensation for resulting injuries. This defence is not affected by the acceptance in law of the principle of comparative fault

Krause v US Truck Co Inc, 787 SW.2d 708 (Mo. 1990), followed.
Gustafson v Benda, 661 SW.2d 11 (Mo. 1983), considered.

2. The “baseball rule”, whereby a ballpark owner is not considered negligent for failing to protect all seats in the park with wire netting and failing to warn a plaintiff about obvious hazards incidental to baseball, is an example of the principle of applied primary assumption of risk.**

Hudson v Kansas City Baseball Club, 164 SW.2d 318 (Mo. 1942); Anderson v Kansas City Baseball Club, 231 SW.2d 170 (Mo. 1950), considered.

3. Where a plaintiff’s injury results from a risk that is not an inherent part of watching baseball, or if the defendant’s negligence has increased the inherent risks and caused the injury, negligence may be found.

Lowe v California League of Professional Baseball, 56 Cal.App.4th 112 (1997), followed.

4. Whether a risk is ‘inherent’ for the purposes of implied primary assumption of risk is a question of law and not of fact. A risk is inherent if it is so intertwined with the relevant activity that it cannot be controlled or limited without abandoning the activity altogether. In this case the risk if injury from the ‘hotdog toss’ was not an inherent part of watching the Royals play baseball, and a risk which the plaintiff assumed by attending the game.

Loughran v The Phillies, 888 A.2d 872 (Pa. 2005); Cohen v Stirling Mets LP, 17 Misc.3d 218 (NY Sup. Ct. 2007), distinguished.

Judgment

The Court’s judgment is available here.

=================================
* Properly, one John Byron Shores.
** South Shore Baseball LLC v DeJesus (2014) H&FLR 2014-39.

Posted on by Stephen Tuck

Brandt v United States (2014) H&FLR 2014-40

Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v United States (2014) H&FLR 2014-40

Supreme Court of the United States

10 March 2014

Coram: Roberts CJ, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor and Kagan JJ

Appearing for the Appellant: Steven J. Lechner (of Mountain States Legal Foundation)
Appearing for the Respondent: Donald B. Verrilli Jr (Solicitor General) and Anthony Alan Yang (of the Office of the Solicitor General)

Numerous parties appeared as amici curiae.

Catchwords: United States – property law – fee simple – railway – easement – rail trail – abandonment

Facts: In 1976 a grant of land in fee simple was made by the respondent to Marvin and Lulu Brandt. The land was granted subject to the rights which had been granted to the operator of the Laramie, Hahn’s Peak & Pacific Railway (railway). The rights in question consisted of a right of way granted to the railway in 1908 under the General Railroad Right-of-Way Act 1875 (43 U.S. Code §934) (Act). In 2004 the railway operator formally abandoned the right of way and removed the railway tracks.

In 2006 the respondent sought a judicial declaration of the abandonment and an order quieting title to the Right of Way in the defendant. It was inteded to convert the right of way to a recreational rail-trail. The trust which by then owned the land granted to the Brandts disputed the respondent’s claim on the grounds that the right of way was a mere easement which was extinguished by abandonment, leaving it with full title to the land. The respondent’s position was that it had retained a reversionary interest in the right of way which would restore it to the respondent if the railway’s interest were abandoned.

The government’s claim was upheld at first instance: United States v Brandt, 2008 WL 7185272 (D. Wyo., 8 April 2008) (the decision is incorporated into the Petition for Certiorari at pp.62 et seq). An appeal was dismissed: United States v Brandt, 496 Fed. Appx 822 (10th Cir, 2012). The defendant appealed.

Held: Per Roberts CJ, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito and Kagan JJ, allowing the appeal, that –

1. A grant to a railway operator under the Act grants only an easement and not a fee interest.

Great Northern Railway Co v United States, 315 US 262 (1942), followed.
Stalker v Oregon Short Line Railway Co, 225 US 142 (1912) and Great Northern Railway Co v Steinke, 261 US 119 (1923), doubted.

2. If the beneficiary of an easement abandons it, the easement disappears. The landowner then resumes a full and unencumbered interest in the land. Hence, when the railway operator abandoned the right of way, the easement terminated and Brandt’s landed ceased to be burdened by it.

Smith v Townsend, 148 US 490 (1893), followed.

Per Sotomayor J, dissenting, that the key issue in this case is defeasibility of title, which was not raised by Great Northern Railway v US. Railroad rights of way are a sui generis form of property rights, made on an implied condition of reverter.

Great Northern Railway Co v United States, 315 US 262 (1942), distinguished.
Rio Grande Western Railway Co v Stringham, 239 US 44 (1915), followed.

Judgment

The court’s judgment is available here.

Posted on by Stephen Tuck

South Shore Baseball LLC v DeJesus (2014) H&FLR 2014-39

South Shore Baseball LLC and Anor v Juanita DeJesus (2014) H&FLR 2014-39

Supreme Court of Indiana

27 June 2014

Coram: Dickson CJ, Massa, Rucker, David and Rush JJ

Appearing for the Appellant (Defendant): James R Branit, Mitchell H Frazen, and Nicholas J Parolisi (of Litchfield Cavo LLP)
Appearing for the Appellee (Plaintiff): Walter J Alvarez, Duke T Escue, and David A Wilson (of Alvarez Law Office)
Appearing for an Amicus Curiae (Indianapolis Indians): Andrew B. Janutolo and RD Zink (of Goodin Abernathy)

Catchwords: Indiana – baseball – spectator – foul ball – injury – baseball rule – negligence – premises liability

Facts: On 23 May 2009 the plaintiff attended a minor-league baseball game in support of the South Shore RailCats. Warnings of the danger of foul balls leaving the field were printed on the plaintiff’s ticket, posted on a sign near her seat, and announced over a loudspeaker prior to the start of play. However, the plaintiff sat in a part of the stadium just outside of the are protected by the netting behind home plate. Early in the game the baseball left the playing field, striking the plaintiff and causing serious injuries.

The plaintiff brought proceedings against the operators of the RailCats on the basis that, by failing to extend the protective netting further, they had negligently failed to make the premises (US Steel Yard) reasonably safe for her as a business invitee.

The defendants applied for summary dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim. The trial court declined same: DeJesus v South Shore Baseball LLC (Lake Superior Court, Hawkins J, 16 March 2012, unreported). The defendants’ appeal was allowed: South Shore Baseball LLC v DeJesus, 982 NE.2d 1076 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). The matter was then transferred to the Supreme Court of Indiana.

Held: Allowing the appeal and granting summary judgment for the defendants, that –

1. The ‘Baseball Rule’, whereby a ballpark operator is protected from liability for injuries from an object leaving the playing field if they have provided screening behind home plate sufficient to meet ordinary demand for protected seating, is not part of the common law of Indiana.

Emhardt v Perry Stadium, 46 NE.2d 704, 113 Ind. App. 197 (1943), doubted.

2. The applicable principle of premises liability law in this case is that a possessor of land is liable for harm to invitees caused by a condition of the land if the possessor should reasonably know of the condition and realise it involves an unreasonable risk of harm to the invitees, and should expect that the invitees will not identify the danger or protect themselves against it, and fails to take reasonable care to protect the invitees from the danger. There was no reason for the defendants to consider that the plaintiff would not realise the danger or protect herself against it.

Pfenning v Lineman, 947 NE.2d 392 (Ind. 2011), applied.

Judgment

The Court’s judgment is available here.

Posted on by Stephen Tuck

Naser v Lakeridge Athletic Club (2014) H&FLR 2014-38

Zahra Naser v Lakeridge Athletic Club (2014) H&FLR 2014-38

Court of Appeal of California (First Appellate District)

27 June 2014

Coram: Jones PJ, Bruiniers and Simons JJ.

Appearing for the Plaintiff: Michael R Loewen and Noah Freeman Schwinghammer (of Law Office of Michael R Loewen)
Appearing for the Defendant: Joseph J. Minioza, Jason W Mauck and Gregory A. Mase (of Ericksen Arbuthnot)

Catchwords: California – health clubs – release – waiver – locker room – wet floor – slip – injury

Facts: The plaintiff was a member of the Lakeridge Athletic Club in El Sobrante. On joining in February 2004 she signed a membership agreement which included a release waiving any claim against the club in respect of injury caused by its negligence. The release relevantly stated –

The Member is fully aware of the potential dangers incidental in engaging in the activity and instruction of exercise activities (such as weight lifting, bodybuilding, aerobic dancing, and any other exercise activity). In consideration of permitting this member to join this Club or to participate in exercise activity and/or instruction at these premises (including the entire indoor area and outdoor parking area), the Member agrees to voluntarily assume all liability and to indemnify [Lakeridge] for any death, injury, or damage suffered by any person, including the Member, arising out of the Member’s activities at [Lakeridge] even if death, injury, or damage is caused by [Lakeridge’s] own passive or active negligence.

On 26 January 2009 the plaintiff attended the club and used the facilities. She returned to the locker room and while there she slipped in a puddle of water, suffering a knee injury.

The plaintiff brought proceedings against the club in negligence. The Defendant sought summary dismissal of the claim on the basis that the plaintiff, by signing the membership agreement, had voluntarily assumed all liability for injury. The plaintiff responded (inter alia) that the release did not apply because her injury was not exercise-related. The application for dismissal was granted: Naser v Lakeridge Athletic Club (Superior Court of Contra Costa County, Austin J, 21 February 2013, unreported). The plaintiff appealed.

Held: Dismissing the appeal, that –

1. The release expressly provided that it was in “consideration of permitting the member to join this Club or to participate in exercise activity and/or instruction at these premises (including the entire indoor area and outdoor parking area)”. The plaintiff’s use of the locker room was covered by the release.

2. In this case, it was proper to find that slipping on a wet locker room floor was reasonably related to the purposes of the release. Semble, slipping in a wet locker room is a hazard known to relate to use of a health club for exercise.

Leon v Family Fitness Center (#107), Inc (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1227, considered.

Judgment

The Court’s judgment is available here.

Posted on by Stephen Tuck

Young v Workers Comp. Appeals Board (2014) H&FLR 2014-37

Daniel Young v Workers Compensation Appeals Board and County of Butte (2014) H&FLR 2014-37

Court of Appeal of California (Third Appellate District)

25 June 2014

Coram: Nicholson APJ, Hull and Butz JJ.

Appearing for the Plaintiff: Craig E. Johnsen (of Mastagni, Holstedt, Amick & Johnsen)
Appearing for the First Respondent (Board): No appearance
Appearing for the Second Respondent (County): Mr Richard A Weyuker and Ms Lauren E. Sible (of Cuneo, Black, Ward & Missler)

Catchwords: California – workers compensation – corrections officer – exercise outside work hours – jumping jacks – work requirement – expectancy

Facts:  The plaintiff, aged 64 years, was employed as a Correctional Sergeant by the Butte County Sheriff’s Department. The Department required its employees to maintain themselves in good physical condition so to be able to sustain the “strenuous physical contacts” of the role. However, it did not provide an opportunity to exercise during working hours. It also did not provide guidance as to the exercises or activities required to maintain the necessary level of fitness. The plaintiff therefore maintained a personal fitness regimen in his own time. While doing “jumping jacks” as part of this regimen on 9 January 2012 he sustained a left knee injury (injury).

The plaintiff claimed workers compensation for the injury and a Workers Compensation Judge found the injury to be compensable under §3600(a)(9) of the Californian Labor Code. That section provides that workers compensation benefits are not payable for an injury arising out of

voluntary participation in any off-duty recreational, social or athletic activity not constituting part of the employee’s work-related duties, except where these activities are a reasonable expectancy of, or are expressly or impliedly required by, the employment.

The Workers Compensation Appeals Board (Board) disagreed and annulled the decision: Young v County of Butte (Workers’ Comp. App. Bd, 20 September 2013, unreported). The plaintiff sought review of the decision.

Held: Annulling the Board’s decision, that –

1.  There is a reasonable expectancy of activity in connection with employment if an employee subjectively believes their participation in the activity is expected by the employer and this belief is objectively reasonable. The worker’s subjective belief is a question of fact and its objective reasonableness a question of law.

Ezzy v Workers Compensation Appeals Board (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 252 and City of Stockton v Workers Compensation Appeals Board (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1513, followed.

2. To find a belief objectively reasonable, there must be a substantial nexus between the employer’s requirements and the specific off-duty activity in which the worker was engaged when injured. In this case, the failure of the department to provide guidance as to exercises or an opportunity to exercise at work meant it was objectively reasonable for the plaintiff to believe the department expected him to exercise while off duty. It would be completely unrealistic to find that jumping jacks – being a common part of warm-up exercises – were not expected of middle aged correctional sergeants who were required to maintain good physical condition.

City of Stockton v Workers Compensation Appeals Board (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1513 and Wilson v Workers Compensation Appeals Board (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 902, followed.

Judgment

The Court’s judgment is available here.

Posted on by Stephen Tuck

Proprietor v Adolfs (2014) H&FLR 2014-36

Proprietor of a house in L. Street  v Friedhelm Adolfs (2014) H&FLR 2014-36

Düsseldorf Regional Court

26 June 2014

Coram: Ralf J.

Appearing for the Plaintiff: Prof. Dr. Carmen Griesel (of Griesel & Kollegen)
Appearing for the Defendant: Mr Martin Lauppe-Assmann (of Lauppe & Hassenkamp)

Catchwords: Germany – tobacco – smoking – landlord and tenant – nuisance – eviction.

Facts: The defendant had been a caretaker at a block of flats from 1973 to 2009. He was provided with an apartment as part of his remuneration. After retiring in 2009 he rented the flat under a standard contract.

The defendant was and is a smoker, consuming about 15 cigarettes a day. It was admitted (but later denied) that he had allowed cigarette smoke to escape into the stairwell and other parts of the building rather than allowing it to escape through open windows. It was found that his landlord had repeatedly warned him verbally and in writing about the escaping odour from 2012.

The plaintiff sought the defendant’s eviction on the basis that cigarette smoke was passing into the stairwell of the apartment building and was allegedly a health hazard for other residents. The eviction was upheld: Proprietor v Adolfs (Düsseldorf District Court, Rundel J, 31 July 2013). The defendant appealed.

Held: Dismissing the appeal, that –

1. The fact that a tenant smokes in their apartment is not a breach of their tenancy contract.

Case No. VIII ZR 37/07 (Federal Court of Germany, 5 March 2008), followed.

2. However, other tenants in the building were not to be expected to endure “unacceptable and intolerable odour”.

3. The defendant was in breach of his tenancy agreement by failing to take adequate steps to prevent cigarette smoke from entering the common areas of the building by not airing his home and not emptying his numerous ashtrays. This provided a sufficient basis to terminate his tenancy.

Case No. 6 S 313/06 (Braunschweig Regional Court, 10 April 2007), considered.

4. In view of the defendant’s long residence in the apartment, however, he was given until 31 December 2014.

Judgment

The Court’s judgment is available here.  An appeal to the Federal Court of Germany is contemplated

Posted on by Stephen Tuck

Velasquez v Superior Court (2014) H&FLR 2014-35

Jorge Velasquez, Jr v Superior Court of Los Angeles County and The People (2014) H&FLR 2014-35

Court of Appeal of California (Second Appellate District)

17 July 2014

Coram: Klein PJ, Aldrich and Kitching JJ

Appearing for the Petitioner (Velasquez): Messrs Ronald Brown, Albert Menaster, Kenneth Erlich and Dylan Ford (public defenders)
Appearing for the Respondent (Superior Court): No appearance
Appearing for the Real Party in Interest (People): Mesdames Jackie Lacey, Phyllis Asayama and Beth Widmark and Mr Matthew Brown (District Attorneys)

Catchwords: California – criminal law – bicycle – intoxicated cyclist – injury – reckless – vehicle – definition.

Facts: On 1 April 2013 the defendant was travelling downhill on his bicycle after a prolonged drinking session. His bicycle had no brakes and could only be stopped with foot pressure. A car pulled in front of him and to avoid it he veered onto the wrong side of the road, colliding with Ms Sudha Russell, who suffered significant injuries. The defendant’s blood alcohol reading was 2.18 and he was charged with reckless driving of a vehicle causing injury under §23103 of the Californian Vehicle Code (Code).

The Code is ambiguous as to its application to bicycles. Section 670 defines a vehicle as “a device by which any person or property may be propelled, moved, or drawn upon a highway, excepting a device moved exclusively by human power …” However, §21200(a) states that a “person riding a bicycle … upon a highway … is subject to all the provisions applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this division”.

On the basis that a bicycle is not a vehicle, the defendant applied to dismiss the proceedings. The trial court denied the application but invited the defendant to seek a writ of prohibition in the Court of Appeal: People v Velasquez (Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Priver J, 7 November 2013, unreported).

Held: Dismissing the application, that –

1. A specific provision prevails over a general one. Because §21200 (and by extension §23103) applies specifically to cyclists, it is to be preferred to the generally drawn §670. A cyclist can therefore be subject to criminal charges for reckless driving.

People v Ahmed (2011) 53 Cal. 4th 156 and People v Calderon (2013) 214 Cal. App. 4th 656, followed.

Clingenpeel v Municipal Court (1980) 108 Cal. App. 3d. 394, not followed.

2. While bicycles and motor vehicles will often pose significantly different levels of danger to the public, the unfairness is mitigated by the availability of lesser penalties for reckless cyclists.

Judgment

The court’s judgment is available here.

Posted on by Stephen Tuck

Vincent Petit v French Republic (2014) H&FLR 2014-34

Vincent Petit v French Republic (2014) H&FLR 2014-34

Administrative Court of Appeal at Nantes (France)

21 July 2014

Coram: Not identified.

Appearing for the Plaintiff: Ms Corinne Lepage (of Huglo Lepage Associés Conseil)
Appearing for the Defendant: Not identified

Catchwords: France – horse riding – algae – gas – death of horse – failure to prevent contamination – liability

Facts: On 28 July 2009 the plaintiff rode his horse onto a beach at Saint-Michel-en-Greve. The beach was contaminated by an outbreak of green algae which was giving off hydrogen sulfide gas as it decomposed. A sign had been placed at the entrance to the beach advising the public to avoid the algae and warning of a threat to health. The plaintiff’s horse became bogged in a mudflat and the prolonged exposure to the gas caused the plaintiff to lose consciousness and the horse to die.

The plaintiff brought proceedings for the loss of his horse against the French state on the basis that it had failed to take proper steps to prevent an outbreak of green algae. The proceeding was dismissed by the Administrative Tribunal at Rennes: Vincent Petit v French Republic (2012), Le Figaro, 29 June 2012. The plaintiff appealed.

Held: Allowing the appeal, that –

1.  The state was responsible for the outbreak of algae because it had not adequately implemented national or European rules on preventing contamination of waters through agricultural activities. Such contamination was accepted as the cause of algal blooms.

2.  The plaintiff had failed to take adequate care, inasmuch as he had taken his horse into a part of the beach particularly exposed to algae. As such, liability was apportioned two-thirds against plaintiff and one third against the defendant.

Judgment

A written judgment has not been released. This report has been compiled based on the Court’s communiqué and on the reports in Le Figaro of 5 August 2009, 29 June 2012 and 21 July 2014, Le Télégramme of 21 July 2014 and La Voix du Nord of 21 July 2014.