Railway Liability: Can a Collision at a Level Crossing Lead to Full Exoneration?

Imagine: you are a train driver, it is 11 p.m., you are approaching an unmanned level crossing near Saverne. You sound the horn, you slow down, but suddenly a car pulls in front of your locomotive. The collision is unavoidable. The car driver dies. His family sues you. Are you liable? This question is asked every year by hundreds of owners of properties located near railway lines.

The French Court of Cassation ruled in a judgment of 25 June 1980 (No. 78-16.288): the lower courts cannot refuse to fully exonerate the railway company from liability without verifying two essential points. First: was the victim's conduct unforeseeable for the train driver? Second: did this conduct render the damage unavoidable? In other words, if the motorist committed a fault that the driver could not anticipate and that alone caused the accident, the railway may be fully discharged.

This decision, although rendered more than forty years ago, remains a reference for all disputes involving a level crossing. It reminds us that civil liability (the obligation to repair damage caused to another) is not automatic: the victim's fault can change everything. For landowners, tenants of premises near the tracks, or motorists, understanding this logic is crucial.

The Facts: A Story Like Many Others

It is 1976, in the region of Schiltigheim. One evening, around 11 p.m., three vehicles arrive in succession at an unmanned level crossing, without barriers or lights. The first and second barely pass in front of an approaching train. The third, driven by Mr. X, also tries to cross, but the locomotive hits him. Mr. X dies instantly.

The victim's family sues the railway company (SNCF) for compensation for their loss (the damage suffered, here the death). They rely on Article 1240 of the Civil Code (formerly 1382): "Any act of a person which causes damage to another obliges the person by whose fault it occurred to make reparation." According to them, the train driver should have seen the car and braked earlier.

The Colmar Court of Appeal, in a judgment of 6 July 1978, ordered the SNCF to compensate the family. It held that the train driver had committed a fault by not slowing down sufficiently, despite the audible warning, and that the victim's fault—crossing the crossing in breach of the highway code—could not fully exonerate the railway, because the SNCF should have foreseen this behaviour.

The SNCF appealed to the Court of Cassation. It argued that the Court of Appeal had not examined whether the crossing of the three vehicles was unforeseeable for the driver, and whether the victim's conduct had not made the accident unavoidable. The Court of Cassation upheld its argument.

The Reasoning of the Court — Analysed

The Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation quashed the appeal judgment. It criticised the lower courts for not having verified two cumulative conditions that could have justified a full exoneration of the SNCF: the unforeseeability of the victim's act and its unavoidable nature.

The legal basis is Article 1240 of the Civil Code, which establishes the principle of fault-based liability. But the Court recalls that, even in the presence of a fault by the defendant (here, a possible fault by the train driver), the victim's fault can fully exonerate the defendant if it has the characteristics of force majeure (an unforeseeable and irresistible event). In short: if the victim's conduct was unforeseeable for the train driver and if this conduct rendered the damage unavoidable, then the SNCF does not have to compensate.

The Court of Appeal had held that the SNCF had committed a fault (not slowing down enough). But it had not examined whether, despite this fault, the victim's conduct had been the exclusive cause of the damage. For example, if the train driver had complied with all safety rules, but the motorist suddenly moved onto the crossing without giving time to react, the accident would have been unavoidable. In that case, the victim's fault absorbs all liability of the railway.

This decision is not a reversal, but a confirmation of previous case law on force majeure. It simply specifies that the lower courts must give reasons for their decision on these two points. Without this examination, their judgment is deprived of a legal basis (i.e., it does not rest on sufficient legal grounds).

What This Means for You — Concretely

This decision has direct implications for several categories of people.

For landlord owners of properties near a level crossing: if a tenant or visitor is the victim of an accident at that crossing, you could be implicated if the accident is linked to a lack of maintenance of your property (for example, a hedge that obscures visibility). But this judgment is favourable to you: if the victim's fault was unforeseeable and made the accident unavoidable, you can be fully exonerated. Example with figures: in Schiltigheim, an owner with land bordering a railway line could see their liability engaged for €100,000 in damages. If the victim crossed despite an audible warning and clear visibility, full exoneration can save that owner.

For motorists and their families: if you are the victim of an accident at a level crossing, do not automatically expect compensation from the SNCF. If you committed a fault (e.g., failure to stop, excessive speed), and that fault was unforeseeable for the train driver, you risk receiving nothing. In practice, the SNCF often relies on unforeseeability and unavoidability. Since this judgment, judges must verify these points.

For co-owners: if your co-ownership adjoins a railway line, and a pedestrian crossing the track is hit, the same logic applies. The management company must ensure that no obstacle obscures visibility, but if the victim crossed suddenly, the liability of the management company can be excluded.

If you are in this situation, you must gather all evidence proving the unforeseeability of the victim's conduct: witness statements, a bailiff's report (a formal record drawn up by a ministerial officer), photographs of the scene, timings, weather conditions. Then, demonstrate that this conduct rendered the damage unavoidable, i.e., that no action on your part could have prevented it.

Four Tips to Avoid This Type of Dispute

• Strictly observe the signage at level crossings. Only proceed if you are certain that no train is approaching. Stopping at a stop sign costs a few seconds; a trial can last years.
• If you are the owner of land bordering a railway line, maintain the vegetation. A hedge that is too high may obscure the train driver's view and be considered a fault on your part. Prune shrubs and trees regularly.
• Keep evidence of your diligence. Take regular photographs of the state of the premises, keep maintenance invoices. In the event of an accident, you will be able to demonstrate that you did not contribute to the damage.
• In the event of an accident, do not admit liability without legal advice. Contact a lawyer specialising in property and railway law. A simple statement to the insurance company may be used against you.

Further Reading: Related Case Law and Developments

This 1980 judgment is part of a consistent line of the Court of Cassation. For example, in a judgment of 7 March 1989 (No. 87-14.763), the Court held that the SNCF could be fully exonerated if the victim had crossed a level crossing while the barriers were closed, conduct characterised as unforeseeable and unavoidable. Conversely, in a judgment of 12 December 1995 (No. 94-10.544), the Court refused exoneration because the train driver had been found reckless (excessive speed).

The current trend of the courts is to be demanding regarding proof of unforeseeability and unavoidability. The lower courts must now give precise reasons for their decision, on pain of cassation. For the future, it is expected that railway companies will multiply safety equipment (cameras, detectors), which will make it more difficult for victims to prove a fault on the part of the railway.

Key Points to Remember

FAQ:

• Q: Can I be compensated if I am the victim of an accident at a level crossing?
  A: Yes, if you prove a fault on the part of the SNCF (e.g., defective signal). But if your own fault was unforeseeable and made the accident unavoidable, you will receive nothing.
• Q: What should I do if I am the owner of land near a railway line and an accident occurs?
  A: Gather evidence of maintenance (photos, invoices) and demonstrate that the victim acted unforeseeably. Consult a lawyer.
• Q: Can the SNCF be exonerated even if it committed a fault?
  A: Yes, if the victim's fault is the exclusive cause of the damage (unforeseeable and unavoidable). The SNCF's fault then becomes irrelevant.
• Q: What are the time limits for taking action?
  A: In civil liability matters, the limitation period is 5 years from the day on which the right holder knew or should have known the facts enabling him to exercise it (art. 2224 Civil Code).
• Q: Does this decision apply to accidents involving pedestrians?
  A: Yes, the same logic applies: the unforeseeable and unavoidable conduct of the pedestrian can fully exonerate the railway company.

Besoin d'un conseil personnalisé ? Contactez Maître Zakine — première consultation 30 min à 45€.

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 →