2024-11-11 05:00:00
LShould the Guarantee Fund for Victims of Acts of Terrorism and Other Offenses (FGTI) compensate a person who became disabled when they were a baby, for having been hit by another toddler whose parents were not blamed? ? This is the question posed by the following case.
On October 13, 1992, the Xs entrusted their daughter, A, 4 months old, to a nanny, M.me Y, who, although not approved, already looks after three children, including her own. While Mme Y leads one of them to the toilet, she hears A crying. When she returns, she notices that B, 2 and a half years old, has grabbed A’s teething rattle, and is hitting her with it.
A few hours later, A had to be transported to the emergency room, which diagnosed severe head trauma. Despite several operations, she remains 90% disabled.
The X having filed a complaint, a judicial investigation is opened. Experts who, for years, follow one another, indicate that the Babar rattle, partly made of hard plastic, may be the cause of the lesions, but that there is no « certitude ».
Expert uncertainty
Although the judge is not required to follow the expert, and although the nanny is insolvent, due to lack of professional insurance, the Lyon Court of Appeal judges, September 7, 2017that the latter is solely responsible for the accident, and that the civil liability insurance of B’s parents should not come into play. “An aberration”according to Me Olivier Costa, who has advised the family for twenty-seven years.
Indeed, the nanny cannot pay the 3 million euros to which she is sentenced, the X must request that the commission of victims of offenses (CIVI) of Lyon replace her. They invoke thearticle 706-3 of the code of criminal procedure, which provides for full compensation for damages “having the material nature of an offense”.
Initially rejected, they obtained satisfaction on appeal: October 20, 2022the Lyon magistrates judge that, ” contrary to ” what their colleagues estimated in 2017, “the origin of the injuries is well established”the nurse’s story being “totally credible and compatible with medical opinions as to the reality of the rattle blows suffered by B”.
However, these blows were either« offense of willful violence »or l’“offence of involuntary attack on personal integritye by clumsiness », said the court, without deciding. Their consequences are therefore compensable.
You have 36.12% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.
1731304147
#young #child #hits #child #rattle #committing #criminal #offence
**Interviewer:** Thank you for joining us today. We’re discussing a complex case involving the Guarantee Fund for Victims of Acts of Terrorism and Other Offenses, particularly the situation of a young girl named A, who sustained severe injuries as a baby. Can you summarize the core details of this case for our audience?
**Guest:** Certainly. In 1992, A, then just four months old, was in the care of a nanny who was looking after other children, including a two-and-a-half-year-old toddler named B. During a brief moment of inattention, B struck A with a teething rattle, resulting in severe head trauma. Despite multiple surgeries, A now lives with a substantial disability.
**Interviewer:** That’s a heartbreaking outcome. What has been the legal outcome regarding the compensation for A’s injuries?
**Guest:** After the accident, A’s parents filed a lawsuit. Initially, the Lyon Court of Appeal held the nanny solely responsible, ruling that the parents of the toddler B were not liable. This was surprising, especially since the nanny was found not to have the professional insurance to cover the damages, which amounted to about 3 million euros. This ruling has left A’s family in a difficult position, necessitating an appeal for compensation through the commission of victims of offenses.
**Interviewer:** What are the implications of this ruling, especially concerning the lack of insurance and the determination of liability?
**Guest:** The implications are significant. The ruling suggests that even in cases of negligence, accountability can be frustratingly elusive, particularly when the responsible party is uninsured. This situation raises broader questions about how liability is assigned in accidents involving children and whether legal frameworks adequately protect vulnerable victims like A. As Maitre Olivier Costa, the family’s advisor, mentioned, many see this as an “aberration” given the circumstances.
**Interviewer:** Was there any expert testimony during the legal proceedings regarding the cause of A’s injuries?
**Guest:** Yes, there were various expert opinions. However, they were inconclusive about the precise cause of A’s injuries, which complicated the case further. The experts suggested that while the rattle was partly responsible, they couldn’t definitively confirm it as the sole cause, which impacted the decision-making of the court.
**Interviewer:** Given the circumstances, what recourse do A’s parents have moving forward?
**Guest:** They are currently pursuing compensation through the CIVI, invoking Article 706-3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which states that victims should receive full compensation for damages that have a material nature of an offense. Although they faced initial rejection, they have seen some progress on appeal thanks to their persistent efforts.
**Interviewer:** It sounds like the case raises important legal and ethical questions. What do you think needs to change in the current system to better support victims like A?
**Guest:** There is certainly a need for clearer guidelines regarding liability in cases involving young children. Additionally, amending insurance regulations for caregivers might help ensure that victims have a reliable source of compensation. Increasing awareness about the responsibilities of child care providers is also crucial to prevent tragedies like this from happening in the future.
**Interviewer:** Thank you for shedding light on this intricate and touching case. It’s crucial to consider the welfare of victims and the broader implications of such legal decisions.