Liability of a Contractor: When a Tenant is Injured in the Common Parts

Picture the scene: you are the owner of a small building in Caen. A tenant uses the common staircase on a winter evening, the landing light bulb is blown, a step is loose. He falls, is injured, and sues you for damages. You then turn against the contractor you had hired for maintenance, arguing that the unfinished work caused the accident. But who should actually pay? Can your liability be fully transferred to the contractor?

The question every landlord asks is simple: if I entrust the maintenance of my building to a professional, am I absolved of all liability in the event of an accident? The answer is not as obvious as one might think. This 1972 decision of the Court of Cassation precisely settles a case where the owner, a Paris HLM office, had been held liable for a tenant's fall and had tried to seek full indemnity from the contractor.

The key takeaway is that liability does not transfer automatically. The judges must analyse the exact causes of the damage: if the accident results from both a defect attributable to the contractor (unrepaired steps) and a negligence of the owner himself (insufficient lighting), the latter cannot demand a full guarantee. Deciphering a case that has direct echoes in our co-ownerships in Caen and Ouistreham.

The Facts: A Story Like Many Others

Let's go back to 1969. The Public Office for Low-Rent Housing of the City of Paris (equivalent to a social landlord) owns a building. It entrusts a company with routine maintenance work, including repairing the steps of a staircase. On 15 March, the office orders the work to begin. But the contractor delays. Meanwhile, a tenant uses the staircase. On 20 April, more than a month after the order, the staircase is still in poor condition, and moreover, the lighting is faulty. The tenant falls and is seriously injured.

The tenant then sues the owner (the HLM office) in tort. The Tribunal de Grande Instance of Paris, and then the Paris Court of Appeal, order the office to compensate the victim. But the office, believing the contractor is solely at fault for not repairing the steps, seeks an indemnity from the latter. The Court of Appeal, in its judgment of 13 May 1970, grants this claim: it orders the contractor to fully indemnify the office for the sums paid to the tenant.

The contractor appeals to the Court of Cassation. His argument? The Court of Appeal found as causes of the accident not only the defective state of the staircase (which falls within his scope) but also the insufficient lighting (which falls within the owner's responsibility). However, by ordering him to guarantee the whole amount, the lower courts did not draw the consequences of their own findings.

The Reasoning of the Court — Analysed

The Court of Cassation, in a short but incisive judgment, partially quashes the Court of Appeal's decision. The reasoning is as follows: Article 1382 of the Civil Code (now 1240) provides that "any act of man which causes damage to another obliges the person by whose fault it occurred to repair it." For a contractor to be obliged to indemnify the owner, his fault must be the exclusive cause of the damage.

However, in this case, the Court of Appeal itself had identified two causes: the defective state of the staircase (attributable to the contractor, who had not carried out the work) and the insufficient lighting (attributable to the owner, who had not ensured the maintenance of the common parts). By ordering the contractor to fully indemnify the owner, the Court of Appeal violated Article 1382. The Court of Cassation criticises the lower court for not limiting the guarantee to the share of liability corresponding to the contractor's fault.

This is neither a confirmation nor a reversal: it is a strict application of tort law. Each wrongdoer must answer for his own fault, proportionally. The contractor cannot be held liable for the consequences of a negligence that lies with the owner. The decision recalls a fundamental principle: one cannot transfer to another the burden of damage one has oneself contributed to causing.

What This Means for You — Practically

For landlords: you cannot entirely shift responsibility onto your contractor. If you neglect the maintenance of common parts (lighting, cleaning, fire safety), you remain liable for your share. Concrete example: in Ouistreham, an owner of a 6-unit building hires a tradesman to repair a staircase handrail. But he forgets to replace the hall light bulb. A tenant falls in the dark. The tradesman will only be liable for the defective handrail, not for the darkness.

For tenants: in case of an accident, you must precisely identify the cause(s). Do not just sue the owner. If a maintenance defect is due to a contractor, you can name him directly in the proceedings. But keep in mind that the owner remains responsible for lighting and general safety.

For contractors: this decision protects you. If you work on a building, document the condition of the premises before work. Photograph the lighting, the steps, anything that could be an independent cause of an accident. In the event of a dispute, you will be able to demonstrate that your liability is limited to your own intervention.

A numerical example: imagine total damages of €50,000. If the contractor's fault is estimated at 60% (unrepaired steps) and the owner's at 40% (missing lighting), the contractor will only have to indemnify €30,000, not the full amount. That is a saving of €20,000 for the tradesman.

Four Tips to Avoid This Type of Dispute

• Owners: carry out an annual safety inspection of your common parts. Check lighting, floor coverings, handrails, steps. Record in writing and with photos. This will allow you to prove your diligence.
• Contractors: before starting, carry out a joint inspection with the owner or the managing agent. Note existing defects, especially lighting. Sign a common document.
• Tenants: immediately report any defect by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt to your landlord. Keep a copy. In the event of an accident, this report will be evidence that the owner was informed.
• In case of urgent work, do not delay: a delay of one month as in this case is considered "more than sufficient" by the Court. If you are a contractor, carry out the work as soon as possible. If you are an owner, follow up in writing.

Further Reading: Related Case Law and Developments

This 1972 decision is part of a consistent line: the principle of privity of contract and liability for personal fault. One can cite a Court of Cassation decision of 15 June 1967 (No. 65-13.412) which already held that the owner cannot rely on the contractor's fault to fully exonerate himself from his own tortious liability towards the victim. More recently, the Mixed Chamber of 27 February 1970 (No. 68-10.276) specified that the project owner may be held jointly and severally liable with the contractor if his fault contributed to the damage.

The trend of the courts is increasingly towards a precise apportionment of liability, sometimes in proportion to the faults. With the rise of mandatory technical inspections (DPE, asbestos, electricity), owners have more safety obligations. It is therefore essential not to neglect the elements that are your own responsibility, even if you delegate certain work.

In Practice: What to Do

FAQ:

• Q: Can I be held liable if my contractor did not do the work? A: Yes, if you yourself contributed to the damage (e.g., faulty lighting). You can seek an indemnity from the contractor, but only for his share.
• Q: What should I do if I am an owner and my tenant is injured? A: Gather all evidence of your maintenance (invoices, contracts, photos). Contact your public liability insurance. Do not admit fault without legal advice.
• Q: Can the contractor refuse to pay if the owner is also at fault? A: Yes, he can request an apportionment of liability. He must prove the owner's fault (e.g., insufficient lighting).
• Q: What is the time limit to act after an accident? A: The limitation period is 5 years for contractual liability (Article 2224 of the Civil Code), but beware, in case of personal injury, the starting point may be the date of consolidation. Consult promptly.

Checklist if you are involved in an accident: 1. Secure the premises. 2. Photograph everything (lighting, steps, victim's shoes). 3. Collect witness statements. 4. Report to your insurer within 5 days. 5. Consult a lawyer specialised in property law.

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