The Liability of a Project Owner

Practical application:

This case law means Olivier’s liability cannot be based solely on his profession as a property developer. The tenant must show Olivier had direct technical involvement in the design or execution of the works. Olivier should gather contracts, emails, and invoices proving he delegated all technical decisions to qualified professionals and did not interfere, to refute any claim of negligence.

Practical application:

Under the ruling, the developer’s liability is not automatic merely because of their profession. Claire needs to gather evidence that the developer actually influenced design choices, issued instructions to builders, or had the technical competence and used it to interfere in the works. Without such proof, her claim may fail. She should collect site meeting minutes, email correspondence, and any building permit variations signed by the developer.

Practical application:

The judgement clarifies that Marc’s liability is not determined by his job title but by his actual technical competence and interference. The syndicate must prove Marc directed the plumbing work and had the skills to foresee the risk, not merely that he was a developer. They should document any instructions Marc gave, technical drawings he produced, or lack of hired licensed professionals, to establish his personal involvement in the damage‑causing actions.