“타인의 행위로 인한 불법행위책임”은 프랑스민법전 제3권 제3편 제2부속편(계약외책임) 제1장(일반 계약외책임)에 위치하고 있다. 부모책임과 사용자책임 등을 포괄하는 타인의 행위로 인한 책임은 지난 수십년간 판례가 크게 변화한 분야이다. 특히 1991년에 내려진 Blieck 판결은 타인의 행위로 인한 책임이 일반적으로 성립할 수 있음을 선언한 것으로 평가된다. 그러나 2020년 7월 29일에 상정된 프랑스 상원개정안 제1243조는 타인의 행위로 인한 책임을 민법전에 규정된 경우에 한정하여 인정하려는 것으로 보인다. 프랑스는 손해배상책임의 경합을 인정하지 않는 경향을 가지고 있다. 하지만 상원개정안 제1244조에 따르면, 타인의 행위로 인한 책임과 행위자 본인의 책임은 경합한다. 가령 미성년자의 행위로 인하여 부모의 책임이 성립하는 경우에 미성년자 본인의 책임도 성립하는 것이다. 이는 우리 민법의 입장과 매우 다른 것이다.
상원개정안에 따르면 타인의 생활방식을 조직하고 통제하는 경우와 단지 타인의 활동을 통제하는 경우는 구분되어야 한다. 전자의 경우 종래의 판례에서와 같이, 사법부 또는 행정부의 결정에 의하여 타인의 생활방식을 조직하고 통제하는 사람은 그 타인의 행위로 인하여 당연책임을 부담한다(제1246조). 미성년자의 생활을 상시적으로 조직하고 통제하는 임무를 맡은 사람도 마찬가지로 당연책임을 부담한다(제1245조 제3호). 하지만 계약에 의해 직업적으로 타인을 감독하는 임무를 맡은 사람에게는 당연책임이 적용되지 않는다. 그들은 자신들이 과책을 범하지 않았다는 점을 증명하지 않는한, 감독 하에 있는 자에 의해 일어난 손해에 대해 책임을 부담한다(제1247조). 그런데 이는 피해자가 감독자의 과책을 증명한 때에 감독자의 책임을 인정해온 판례의 입장과는 다른 것이다.
프랑스는 사용자책임이 성립하는 경우 피용자가 면책되는 원칙을 유지하는 입장을 취하고 있다. 사용자의 면책사유에 관하여 상원개정안 제1248조 제3항은, 사용자는 피용자가 “직무 외의 행위를 허락 없이 자기 권한과 상관 없는 목적을 위해 하였음을 증명”한 경우(제1문) 그리고 “피해자가 피용자가 사용자를 위해 행동한다는 점을 적법하게 믿을 수 없었음을 증명”한 경우(제2문)를 규정한다.
“Liability for the Tort of Another Person" is codified in Chapter 1 (General Extra-Contractual Liability) of Part III of Title III of the French Civil Code. Liability for torts of others, including the parents’ responsibility and the employer’s responsibility, is an area in which the jurisprudence has changed significantly over the past three decades. The Blieck decision in 1991 has been argued to establish liability for the acts of another as a general principle. However the law proposal filed by the Senate on July 29, 2020 seems to restrict the liability for act of another only in cases that will be provided for in the revised Civil Code(Art.1243). France generally does not allow the combination of the liabilities. However, Art.1244 of the proposal allows the combination of the liability of both the person who acted and the person who is liable for the acts. For example, if a parent's responsibility is established due to the acts of a minor, the responsibility of the minor himself or herself is also established. This is very different from the position of korean civil law. According to the law proposal, a distinction should be drawn between whether a person organizes and controls the way of life of another, or just controls the activity of another, In the first case, the reform confirms the existing jurisprudence where a person is liable for the acts of another if he organizes and controls permanently the way of life of that person, by judicial or administrative decision(Art.1246). The same solution, strict liability is established for persons assigned to permanently organize and control the life of a minor(Art.1245 no 3). But it des not apply to those who take on by contract, and by way of their business or profession, a task of supervision of another person. They bear liability for damages caused by the person supervised unless they show that they did not commit any fault(Art.1247). It is not in accordance with the jurisprudence that recognizes their liability if the victim show that they committed a fault. France maintains the principle that employee is indemnified if employer’s liability is established. Para. 3 of Art.1248 of the proposal provides that an employer is not liable if he "proves that the employee acted outside the functions for which he was employed, without authorisation and for purposes ailen to his attributions" or he "establishes that the victim could not lawfully believe that the employee was acting on behalf of the employer".
“Liability for the Tort of Another Person" is codified in Chapter 1 (General Extra-Contractual Liability) of Part III of Title III of the French Civil Code. Liability for torts of others, including the parents’ responsibility and the employer’s responsibility, is an area in which the jurisprudence has changed significantly over the past three decades. The Blieck decision in 1991 has been argued to establish liability for the acts of another as a general principle. However the law proposal filed by the Senate on July 29, 2020 seems to restrict the liability for act of another only in cases that will be provided for in the revised Civil Code(Art.1243). France generally does not allow the combination of the liabilities. However, Art.1244 of the proposal allows the combination of the liability of both the person who acted and the person who is liable for the acts. For example, if a parent's responsibility is established due to the acts of a minor, the responsibility of the minor himself or herself is also established. This is very different from the position of korean civil law. According to the law proposal, a distinction should be drawn between whether a person organizes and controls the way of life of another, or just controls the activity of another, In the first case, the reform confirms the existing jurisprudence where a person is liable for the acts of another if he organizes and controls permanently the way of life of that person, by judicial or administrative decision(Art.1246). The same solution, strict liability is established for persons assigned to permanently organize and control the life of a minor(Art.1245 no 3). But it des not apply to those who take on by contract, and by way of their business or profession, a task of supervision of another person. They bear liability for damages caused by the person supervised unless they show that they did not commit any fault(Art.1247). It is not in accordance with the jurisprudence that recognizes their liability if the victim show that they committed a fault. France maintains the principle that employee is indemnified if employer’s liability is established. Para. 3 of Art.1248 of the proposal provides that an employer is not liable if he "proves that the employee acted outside the functions for which he was employed, without authorisation and for purposes ailen to his attributions" or he "establishes that the victim could not lawfully believe that the employee was acting on behalf of the employer".