Cat Bite: Woman Receives €6,312 From Neighbours’ Insurer

An extraordinary dispute between neighbours has resulted in compensation for a cat bite.

If you regularly see a neighbour’s cat wandering across your property, this case may be of interest. In legal proceedings reported by Droits-finances, a woman received €6,312 in compensation after being bitten by her neighbours’ cat.

Owners’ liability for damage caused by a cat

As Droits-finances explains, Article 1243 of the Civil Code makes animal owners liable for damage caused by their animals. This responsibility applies whether the animal is in their care or has escaped.

In this case, a 62-year-old woman opened her window one evening in June 2017. She found the neighbouring couple’s cat sitting on the windowsill after it had crossed over the roof. She tried to get it down by picking it up, but the cat reacted badly and bit her. A few weeks later, she brought legal action against its owners.

Ten months after the incident, a doctor’s report found that the woman had swelling in her finger and lasting effects. According to Droits-finances, it showed “a limitation in flexion and extension of the distal interphalangeal joint”, with a permanent functional impairment of 2%. The Aix-en-Provence Court of Appeal therefore assessed her personal injury at €6,312. The cat owners’ insurer ultimately paid that amount.

A surprising court ruling

Some court decisions can significantly alter the outcome of particular cases. We recently covered a case in which a person lost ownership of their property because someone else had been paying the property tax on it. Yet French property law is clearly set out in Article 544 of the Civil Code, which defines it as “the right to enjoy and dispose of things in the most absolute manner”.

Adverse possession and property ownership

The only potential exception, according to our colleagues, is adverse possession. This principle allows someone to become the owner of a property by occupying or using it for a long period, despite not being listed as its owner in the land register. However, the occupation must have lasted for at least 30 years and must be continuous, peaceful, meaning without violence, and public rather than concealed.

In 2014, the Court of Cassation applied this principle and recognised that a family owned plots of land which had, in fact, belonged to another party. The court noted in particular that the family had farmed the land since 1964 and had carried out work there. It had also paid the property tax for the estate. Those factors, together with compliance with the conditions outlined above, led the court to declare that the plots had been acquired through adverse possession.