248 / 469
NEWSLETTER 2011
234
Art.66/4 stipulates
‘The employer has the right of recourse of the
indemnity he has paid, against the worker who has caused the damage to
the extent of the personal liability of the worker.’
With this article, the right
of recourse of employer against his worker is subject to the realization of
the condition that the worker is personally obliged to pay an indemnity
to a third person. In this respect, whereas the possibility of recourse in
the proportion of the amount of the indemnity due by the worker exists,
on the contrary the person who employs people for work has not right to
recourse to the worker.
The Liability of the Keepers of Animals
It is set in the articles 67 and the followings of the Code. A person
who permanently or temporarily assumes the care of an animal is held
responsible to remedy to the damages caused by this animal but if he
proves that he has acted in due diligence in order to prevent the occurrence
of this damages then he will be absolved from this liability. However, in
the case the animal has been frightened by another person or by an animal
belonging to some other person, the keeper of the animals has the right of
recourse against these persons.
As set in the Art.68, if an animal belonging to a person causes damage
to an immovable of another person, the holder of the immovable can
catch the animal and hold it in his possession until the damage is repaired.
Moreover, he can even restrain or confine the animal if the circumstances
prove it right. However, in this case, the holder of the immovable has the
obligation to inform the owner of the animal.
The Liability of the Landowners
It is set in the article 69 of the Code. First, this article sets the liability of
the landowner of a structure, premises or of any other kind of construction
work for the defects of their construction or for the insufficiencies in
their maintenance. However, the landowner cannot be held liable if the
causal relationship between the material or moral damage occurred and
the defectiveness or lack of care of the structure is cut by the interference
of the fault of the person who suffered from the damage or by the fault of
any third person.