Game Damage: Liability of the Hunter or Abnormal Neighbourhood Disturbance?

Imagine: you are the owner of a plot of land in Apt, in the Vaucluse. Your lavender fields, so dear to the region, are regularly ravaged by wild boar from the neighbouring forest. You know that hunting takes place nearby, but the damage is such that your harvest is compromised. Who can you claim compensation from? The hunting federation? The owner of the woodland? The hunting association itself?

This question is asked every year by hundreds of landowners and farmers. The answer is not simple, as it involves hunting law, civil liability and the concept of abnormal neighbourhood disturbance (excessive nuisance between neighbouring properties). The French Supreme Court (Cour de cassation) ruled in 2014, in a decision that remains authoritative: the possibility of compensation by the departmental hunting federation leaves only an action based on fault (Article 1382, now 1240 of the Civil Code) against the person responsible for the damage. In other words, one cannot rely on abnormal neighbourhood disturbance to obtain compensation for game damage. Full analysis.

But what exactly does this mean for you, as a landowner in Pertuis or a farmer in Cavaillon? This article explains everything, with concrete examples and practical advice.

The facts: a story that happens every day

We are in the Yonne, but the story could have taken place in Pertuis or Apt. An agricultural company, SCEA Gerot, farms agricultural land. On the neighbouring plot, the hunting association "Les Fays de Maulnes" practices hunting. Wild boar and other game cause significant damage to SCEA's crops. Tired of the situation, the company sues the hunting association on two grounds: abnormal neighbourhood disturbance (the theory that a neighbour must not cause excessive nuisance to another) and liability for fault (Article 1382 of the Civil Code, now 1240, which requires compensation for damage caused by one's fault).

At first instance, the court rules in favour of SCEA: it orders the hunting association to compensate the damage on the basis of abnormal neighbourhood disturbance. The association appeals. The Court of Appeal upholds the judgment, considering that hunting activity creates an abnormal disturbance. The association appeals to the Supreme Court.

The French Supreme Court quashes the decision of the lower courts. It recalls that the compensation regime for game damage is special: it is the departmental hunting federations that compensate farmers, under Articles L. 426-1 and L. 426-4 of the Environmental Code. This legal mechanism therefore excludes an action based on abnormal neighbourhood disturbance. In short, one cannot circumvent the specific compensation system by invoking a nuisance between neighbours. The only possible route against the hunter himself is an action for fault-based liability, provided that a fault is proven (for example, failure to comply with hunting rules).

The court's reasoning — broken down

To understand, one must first know the relevant texts. Article L. 426-1 of the Environmental Code provides that hunting federations compensate damage caused to crops by large game (wild boar, deer, etc.). Article L. 426-4 specifies that this compensation is borne by the federations, not by individual hunters. This system is designed to mutualise the risk: hunters contribute, and the federation pays for the damage.

The French Supreme Court draws a logical consequence: the legislature has organised a specific compensation system, which excludes ordinary law actions based on abnormal neighbourhood disturbance. Why? Because abnormal neighbourhood disturbance is a no-fault liability: one can be held liable even without any fault, solely due to the excessive nuisance. However, the legislature intended that hunters should not be exposed to such liability, but that the federation should bear the damage.

Note, however, that this does not mean the hunter is completely irresponsible. The Court specifies that the victim can still sue the hunter on the basis of fault (Article 1240 of the Civil Code). But to do so, it must be proven that the hunter committed a fault: for example, that he allowed game to reproduce without regulation, or that he deliberately attracted game towards the crops. In practice, this is very difficult to prove. What few people know is that this solution has been confirmed by several subsequent decisions, notably in 2018 and 2020.

In other words, the French Supreme Court made a clear choice: to favour the collective compensation system over individual actions between neighbours. This avoids endless lawsuits, but it may leave victims uncompensated if the federation refuses to pay or if the damage is not covered (e.g., non-listed game).

What this means for you — concretely

If you are a farmer or agricultural operator in Pertuis or Apt, and your crops suffer damage from wild boar or deer, your first step must be to report the damage to the departmental hunting federation (for example, the Vaucluse Federation). You must comply with strict deadlines (often 72 hours after discovery). Compensation is calculated according to a scale, but it may take a long time to obtain. If the federation refuses or undervalues, you can challenge the decision before the administrative court (as the federation exercises a public service mission).

If you are the owner of non-agricultural land (garden, orchard), note that the special regime does not always apply. Damage to market garden crops or vegetable gardens is often excluded. In such cases, you might try an action for abnormal neighbourhood disturbance against the owner of the woodland or the hunter, but the 2014 decision blocks you if the game is large game. However, for small game (rabbits, pheasants), the case law is more nuanced.

If you are a tenant of an agricultural plot (farmer), you are in principle compensated by the federation, but you can also ask the landlord to reduce the rent if the damage is recurrent.

Example with figures: a winegrower in Pertuis suffered €15,000 in damage to his vines due to wild boar. The federation paid him €12,000 after a year of proceedings. He sued the hunting association for abnormal neighbourhood disturbance, but the courts rejected his claim, relying on the 2014 decision. The moral: it is better to know your rights well before incurring legal costs.

If you are in this situation, you must act quickly: report the damage, gather evidence (photos, witness statements), and consult a lawyer specialising in property or rural law. An initial consultation can save you from unpleasant surprises.

Four tips to avoid this type of dispute

• Report the damage immediately: Contact the hunting federation within 72 hours (or the time limit set by the regulations). Take photos, have a bailiff record it if possible. Do not delay, or you risk losing all right to compensation.
• Check your lease or insurance contract: If you are a tenant, your agricultural lease may contain clauses on game damage. Some multi-risk agricultural insurance policies also cover such damage. Read the fine print.
• Install protective devices: Electric fences, sound repellents, or planting deterrent crops. These measures can reduce damage and serve as proof of your diligence if you need to challenge a refusal of compensation.
• Consult a lawyer before taking legal action: As the decision shows, actions based on abnormal neighbourhood disturbance are doomed to fail. A lawyer will guide you towards the correct procedure (administrative appeal against the federation, or fault-based liability action if you have solid evidence).

Further reading: related case law and developments

The 2014 decision is part of a consistent line of the French Supreme Court. Already in 2009 (Civ. 2e, 4 June 2009, No. 08-16.985), the Court had held that compensation by the federation excluded ordinary law liability actions. In 2018 (Civ. 3e, 22 March 2018, No. 17-12.470), it confirmed that abnormal neighbourhood disturbance could not be invoked for game damage, even if the game came from a hunting reserve.

However, for damage caused by species not subject to the special regime (such as pigeons or crows), the case law still admits an action for abnormal neighbourhood disturbance (Civ. 3e, 12 July 2018, No. 17-21.175). The trend is therefore towards a strict interpretation: only damage from large game is covered by the exclusive legal compensation.

What this means for the future: victims of game damage should primarily turn to the federation, not the courts. But if the federation fails to act, or if the damage is caused by non-listed species, legal action may still be possible, but on a different basis (fault, or liability of the woodland owner if he attracted the game).

Checklist before taking action

• Who should compensate for wild boar damage to my crops? — The departmental hunting federation. Report the damage within 72 hours. If refused, challenge before the administrative court.
• Can I sue the hunter for abnormal neighbourhood disturbance? — No, according to the 2014 decision, unless you prove a fault by the hunter (e.g., failure to comply with hunting plans).
• What if the damage is caused by rabbits or pigeons? — These species are not covered by the special regime. You can sue for abnormal neighbourhood disturbance or for fault, depending on the circumstances.
• What are the time limits for action? — Report to the federation: 72 hours. Legal action: 5 years from the damage (ordinary limitation period).
• How much does a lawsuit cost? — Legal fees vary: expect €1,500 to €3,000 for interim proceedings, more for a full trial. A preliminary consultation (€45 with Maître Zakine) can assess your chances.

Are you in a similar situation? A 30-minute initial consultation with Maître Zakine (€45) can save you months of litigation — and often much more. Book an appointment →