A family claimed that they had not been able to return to their apartment following the works but, by temporarily staying elsewhere, had left all the windows closed.
The impossibility of returning home following painting work may justify compensation payable by the company that carried it out, but on condition that ventilation is not obstructed.
The Court of Cassation therefore limited the compensation due to a family which claimed that it had not been able to return to its apartment following the works but which, by taking temporary accommodation elsewhere, had left all the windows closed.
Having had their apartment repainted, the family had found that it was impossible to return to it without experiencing headaches and sore throats. An expert report had then revealed excessive levels of volatile solvents and this situation had lasted several months.
The owners might not ignore the need for ventilation
Admittedly, the judges observed, the obligation to live elsewhere for a certain time, linked to the toxic emissions of the paint used, may have been abnormal and must be compensated by the painter, but keeping the windows closed during this absence and the absence of any installation allowing an outside air inlet cannot be attributed to it.
The owners might not ignore the need to ventilate, the judges concluded. Therefore, making the painting company bear the depollution work might be excessive because the owners were partly responsible for their damage, added the Court of Cassation.
(Cass. Civ 3, 30.11.2022, Z 21-22.163).
