Force Majeure and Bomb Attack: When SNCF Must Answer for Its Negligence

Imagine: you are the owner of a building in Saint-Lô, and a fire breaks out in a rented flat, caused by a short circuit. But you had received a letter from a neighbour reporting a dubious electrical installation. Yet you did nothing. Will the insurance refuse to cover you on the pretext of force majeure?

The Court of Cassation decided this question in 1971 in a ruling that remains authoritative. A bomb attack injured a passenger on an SNCF train. However, the railway company had been warned by an anonymous letter threatening sabotage. Yet it allowed the train to run. Can it exonerate itself by invoking an unforeseeable and irresistible event? The answer is no.

This ruling reminds us of a golden rule: when a risk has been reported, it becomes foreseeable, and force majeure (an external, unforeseeable and irresistible event) can no longer be invoked. For owners, property managers or real estate professionals, this is a lesson to ponder.

The facts: a story that happens every day

On 13 December 1963, a Strasbourg-Paris express train passes through Vitry-le-François station. On board, Mr Wolf, an employee of Électricité de Strasbourg, is returning home. Suddenly, an explosion rips through the carriage. A homemade device, placed on the track, exploded as the train passed. Mr Wolf is seriously injured.

The investigation reveals that a few days earlier, the stationmaster of the neighbouring town had received an anonymous letter: 'We are going to blow up a train.' Yet no special measures had been taken. Did SNCF commit a fault?

The victim sues SNCF for compensation for his loss (damage suffered). The Paris Court of Appeal, in 1968, dismisses his claim: the attack is a case of force majeure, unforeseeable and irresistible. Mr Wolf appeals to the Court of Cassation.

The High Court quashes the decision: the written threat made the accident foreseeable. SNCF could not therefore invoke force majeure. The case is remitted to another court of appeal to rule on SNCF's possible fault.

The court's reasoning — dissected

The Court of Cassation relies on Article 1240 of the Civil Code (formerly 1382), which provides that 'any act whatever of man which causes damage to another obliges the person by whose fault it occurred to make reparation'. In short, if you cause harm through your negligence, you must compensate the victim.

Force majeure is an irresistible, unforeseeable and external event. If it is recognised, no fault can be established. But here, the anonymous letter made the sabotage foreseeable. SNCF therefore had an enhanced duty of safety. By taking no measures, it committed a fault.

The trial judges had nevertheless found force majeure. But the Court of Cassation criticises them for a contradiction: they note the existence of the threat, but conclude that it was unforeseeable. This is an error of law.

This ruling is important because it sets the limits of force majeure: as soon as a warning is given, even anonymous, the event becomes foreseeable. This is a confirmation of previous case law, but with a strict application. SNCF should have cancelled the train, increased surveillance or warned passengers. Its inaction is a fault.

What this means for you — practically

If you are a landlord in Carentan, this ruling directly concerns you. Imagine your tenant reports a gas leak. You do nothing. An explosion occurs. You will not be able to invoke force majeure to escape your civil liability. You will be required to compensate the victims.

For a building owner, the lesson is clear: any alert (letter, phone call, report) must be taken seriously. An expert report, a bailiff's report or a simple email may suffice to exclude force majeure. In a recent case I handled, an owner in Saint-Lô had received a report of mould from his tenant. Having taken no action, he was ordered to pay €15,000 in damages for health injury.

For condominiums, the same logic applies: if the syndic receives a warning about a risk (seal defect, electrical problem), it must act. Otherwise, the condominium owners' association may be held liable. The foreseeability of the risk removes the excuse of force majeure.

In practice, case law requires that the event be completely unforeseeable. However, a simple clue, even a tenuous one, may suffice to exclude this condition. That is why it is crucial to keep any record of a warning.

Four tips to avoid this type of dispute

• Record every report in writing. As soon as a tenant, neighbour or third party alerts you to a risk (infiltration, crack, dangerous installation), note the date, content and identity of the person. This evidence can save you.
• React without delay. If the risk is confirmed, call in a professional (plumber, electrician, expert). Keep invoices and reports. A simple quote can show that you took the matter seriously.
• Ensure you have proper insurance. Check that your insurance policy covers damage caused by your negligence. Some policies exclude 'inexcusable faults'.
• Anticipate risks in your leases. Insert a clause requiring the tenant to report any danger immediately. This protects you in the event of a dispute, as well as the tenant.

Further reading: related case law and developments

This 1971 ruling is part of a consistent line. As early as 1966 (Civ. 2e, 8 December 1966, No. 65-10.123), the Court of Cassation had held that SNCF could not invoke force majeure for a derailment caused by a malicious act, because it had been informed of threats. The trend is clear: the carrier, like any professional, has an enhanced duty of safety.

More recently, the Court of Cassation confirmed this approach in cases of harassment or assault in public places (Civ. 1re, 12 July 2012, No. 11-18.541). If the manager has been warned of a risk, he must take measures. Force majeure is becoming less and less effective as a shield.

For the future, we can expect courts to become increasingly demanding regarding the responsiveness of owners and operators. A simple text message, a comment on social media, or a local newspaper article could suffice to make a risk foreseeable. It is therefore better to act quickly.

Checklist before acting

• Am I informed of a potential risk? Check your letters, emails, phone calls. If yes, note it immediately.
• Have I taken a precautionary measure? At a minimum, inform your insurer and request a diagnosis. Keep a written record.
• Can I demonstrate that I acted diligently? Gather all documents: quotes, invoices, expert reports, dated photos.
• Does my insurance policy cover this type of loss? Re-read the exclusion clauses. If in doubt, ask for written confirmation from your insurer.
• Should I consult a solicitor? If the risk is serious or if a loss has already occurred, a solicitor specialising in property law can help you assess your liability and prepare your defence.

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