EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY IN FRANCE
225
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY IN FRANCE BY B. H THE French law of negligence is neither so highly developed in theory nor so frequently invoked in practice as is the corresponding branch of the law in the United States. The Code provides gener ally that every act or omission on the part of one individual which causes injury to another gives rise to a cause of action.1 This liability is extended to include lia bility for injuries by dependents, minor children, pupils and apprentices, servants and animals.2 The above provisions con stitute what may. be described as the fun damental law of negligence. In consider ing them it should be borne in mind that they are not affected by previous law, either of precedent or organic law, and that they are subject to modification at any time by legislative authority, having, themselves, the force of mere legislative enactments. The four sections cited above, with the addition of one other (Art. 1386) which makes the owner of a building liable for injuries resulting from faulty construction or the lack of proper care, comprise' the whole and only chapter of the Code dealing with the subject of Torts. Their vague ness is characteristic and suggestive of the vast and terrible power exercised by the judges who construe and apply these laws, without either constitutional limitation or the binding force of previous decisions. The resulting uncertainty may be noted as one of the reasons for the comparatively limited amount of litigation in this field during the last century. The small dam ages awarded, the difficulty of proving, under the French rules of Evidence, a case where the liability is not clearly apparent, the distribution of the functions of the lawyer among several classes of men, each of which is restricted to a particular kind of 1 Code Civil. Arts. 1382, 1383. J Code Civil. Arts. 1384, 1385.
CONNER. work, such as notarial work, pleading, etc.ithe fondness of the Latin mind for general ization and the corresponding dislike for "technicalities " are also important factors in the discouragement of a science which has reached such an admirable degree of perfection in the United States. While the French lawyer, as a rule, is fond of analy tical study, it must yet be apparent that under these conditions the beauties of the doctrines of res ipsa loquitur, of "contribu tory " and "comparative " negligence and the "fellow servant rule," do not afford him the same keen pleasure which his brethren of the American Bar derive from their study. But the most important reason of all is found in the antiquated rules which sur round the members of the French Bar in their professional relations to their clients. The workman, as such, in France, is en titled to "assistance judiciare," which means that his counsel, appointed by the court, is obliged to plead his cause and is forbidden to accept any compensation for his services, no matter how successful he may be. The same rule applies to other persons who are in need of "judicial" assistance. In ordi nary cases, however, the counsel may accept a fee but may not stipulate for or demand it, and may not sue for its recovery. It is no reflection upon the high-minded and conscientious zeal of the Avocats to say that such a system is not calculated to, and does not, conduce to the same progress which is observable in a system which knows not to muzzle the ox that treads out the corn. In 1898 a statute was passed with special reference to the question of the liability of a master towards employees injured in his service. This law has been modified by various subsequent statutes, the last im portant one of which was the law of March 31, 1905. The first paragraph of this law
