You are liable for any damage, regardless of the cost

In a recent ruling, the Court of Cassation reaffirmed the importance of the principle of civil liability in cases of harm caused to a neighbor, even if the cost of compensation proves to be high for the person responsible.

In fact, the Court ruled that the exorbitant cost of the repair cannot, under any circumstances, exempt the liable party from its obligations toward its neighbor.
 

In this case, a homeowner had built a house whose dimensions exceeded those authorized by the building permit. Despite the significant cost involved in reducing the size of the structure, the Court of Cassation ruled that the homeowner was required to comply. The judges emphasized that the principle of civil liability requires full compensation for the harm suffered by the neighbor, without this benefiting or disadvantaging anyone.
 

The neighbor, complaining of the loss of three-quarters of his ocean view, a significant reduction in daily sunlight, and less light in his living areas, had the court find that the permitted construction limits had been exceeded. The builder, arguing that the deviation fell within an acceptable margin of error and that the cost of lowering the ridge height by 70 cm would be unreasonable, contended that such a penalty would be disproportionate.
 

However, the Court of Cassation held that a judge is not entitled to reduce the compensation owed to the victim simply because the cost to the party responsible for the damage would be disproportionate. The Court has repeatedly stated that a victim of damage is generally not required to minimize their loss in order to accommodate the party responsible for the damage.
 

However, in September 2022, the Court did not impose such a solution in a similar case involving two neighbors in a housing development, because the case concerned the application of the terms of a housing development contract binding both parties, rather than civil liability between two unrelated individuals. In that case, the Court had accepted that the damage be compensated through monetary damages rather than demolition. (Cass. Civ. 3, April 4, 2024, Z 22-21.132).