La responsabilité délictuelle du fait d’un enfant mineur : des régimes spéciaux vers un régime général ? - une comparaison franco-mauricienne
Goran GeorgijevicTant le Code civil français que le Code civil mauricien, inspiré pour des raisons d’ordre historique par celui-là, contiennent les cas spécifiques de responsabilité du fait d’un enfant mineur. Il en va ainsi de la responsabilité des parents, du personnel éducatif ou encore des écoles publiques. Néanmoins, l’interrogation sur ce type de responsabilité et sur sa spécificité peut aller encore plus loin, comme un enfant mineur peut être confié à un tiers en vertu d’un jugement ou d’une décision administrative. Peut-on alors ébaucher un régime général de la responsabilité délictuelle du fait d’un enfant mineur ? Le but que se fixe la présente analyse consiste à répondre à cette question, en analysant, d’une part, les conditions essentielles d’un tel régime général, et en ébauchant, d’autre part, les contours de la nature d’un tel régime. La méthode utilisée dans la préparation de la présente analyse est la méthode analytique, s’appuyant sur les sources législatives, jurisprudentielles et doctrinales disponibles.
Tort Liability for the Act of a Minor Child: from the Special Regimes towards a General One?–A Comparison between French and Mauritian Laws
Goran GeorgijevicBoth the French and the Mauritian Civil Codes, the latter being, for historical reasons, strongly influenced by the former, contain special rules on tort liability for the acts of minors. These rules concern the tort liability of parents, educational staff, and public schools. However, the reflection on this type of tort liability and its specificity can go beyond the existing legal framework, as a minor child can be handed to another person on the grounds of a state court’s judgement or an administrative decision. Can we imagine a general regime of tort liability for acts committed by a minor child? This study aims to answer the above question. On the one hand, we will analyse the essential conditions of such a regime and, on the other hand, we propose the nature of tort liability for the acts of a minor child under such a general regime. We will use a traditional analytical method in which legal analysis draws upon available legislation, case law, and scholarly writings.
Mauritius has, for historical reasons, a mixed legal system, where one part is influenced by the Common Law and the other is inspired by French law. The organisation of the courts of justice in Mauritius is based on the UK model, and the powers of the Supreme Court of Mauritius are the same as those of the High Court of Justice in England. Many branches of the Mauritian Law, maritime law, and judicial review, for example, have been influenced by the Common Law, but some parts of it, the Civil Code, for instance, are of French origin. This is because the Act of capitulation signed between France and the United Kingdom in 1810 has authorised the inhabitants of the island to keep their laws. In these circumstances, a comparison between French and Mauritian civil law is well justified.
Both France and Mauritius have special rules on tort liability for acts committed by minors. These rules concern public schools, teaching staff, and parents. However, Mauritian Law differentiates from French Law regarding the existence of a general principle of tort liability for the acts of others (children). In France, such a general principle was established in the case of Blieck brought before the French Court of Cassation. In Mauritius, such a general principle does not exist, meaning that the victim of harm must rely on the general rules on subjective tort liability and prove the fault of the defendant.
A comparison between France and Mauritius leads us to the conclusion that a general regime of tort liability may exist for the acts of minor children in Mauritius. Two conditions need to be fulfilled for the application of the aforesaid general regime: (1) the existence of legal power exercised over a child and (2) the existence of the personal liability of a child. This liability may be subjective, based on the civil fault of a child, or objective, without any civil fault of the child.
It is certain that tort liability for the acts of a minor child derogates from the general rule in Mauritius that the victim of harm must prove the civil fault of the defendant. Thus, a general regime of tort liability for the acts of a minor child may be based either on the presumption of a civil fault of the person exercising the legal power over a child or objectively without any fault. On the one hand, objective liability, which is harsh on the liable person, needs to be applied only if the benefit realised by the liable person and the situation of the liable person justify such a legal solution. On the other hand, in all other situations, the liability for the acts of a minor child must be based on the presumption of civil negligence. This gives the liable person the opportunity to escape from his or her liability by proving that no civil fault has been committed. It is not necessary to prove the existence of a force majeure.
