TF, 09.23.2026,6B_341/2025, 6B_349/2025
Facts
During a material delivery at a construction site, A, a truck-mounted crane operator, began lifting a pallet without direct visibility of the load or the assistance of a qualified guide. C, a worker on the truck bed, was in the crane's path. Struck by the load, he fell and suffered complete paraplegia. Tests revealed a blood alcohol level between 1.36 and 1.72 g/kg. A and B, the manager of the company employing the victim, were convicted of negligent grievous bodily harm. The cantonal court held them fully civilly liable and ordered them to pay 160,000 francs in joint and several liability for non-pecuniary damages. They contested, among other things, the failure to account for C's contributory negligence (recitals 1.3, 3.1, and 4.1).
Law
Art.125 SCC, in conjunction withart. 12 para. 3 SCC, requires a culpable breach of a duty of care, bodily injury, and a natural and adequate causal link. When safety regulations are intended to prevent accidents, their violation allows for the presumption of a breach of the duty of care. The victim's own negligence does not, in itself, exclude this violation (recital 3.2.2).
Adequate causation persists even when other circumstances contribute to the result. Its interruption requires a concurrent cause so extraordinary and predominant that it relegates the perpetrator's conduct to the background. The mere unpredictability of the victim's behavior is not sufficient (recital 3.3.2).
According toArt. 44 para. 1 CO, a victim's contributory negligence may justify a reduction in damages, including compensation for non-pecuniary loss. It requires blameworthy conduct that causally contributed to the damage. The judge has broad discretion, particularly in assessing the relative gravity of the faults (recitals 4.3.1 and 4.3.2).
Application to the specific case
Criminal liability of A. The driver operated the crane without visibility of the load and without a qualified guide, contrary to safety regulations. The occasional intervention of a colleague tasked with traffic control did not constitute sufficient assistance. These failures establish a breach of the duty of care. C's imprudent presence on the truck was not extraordinary, as safety rules are specifically intended to prevent this danger. The causal link therefore remains intact, and the criminal conviction is upheld (recitals 3.1, 3.2.2, and 3.3.3).
Contributory negligence and civil liability. Contrary to the cantonal authority, the Federal Supreme Court considers that regulations intended to protect workers from their own imprudence do not preclude a reduction in compensation. C climbed onto pallets and remained in the immediate vicinity of a moving load. His high blood alcohol level was also incompatible with working on a construction site. However, his lack of specific safety training mitigates his fault. These circumstances justify a finding of 20% contributory negligence, despite the criminal liability of the defendants (recitals 4.3.2 and 4.4).
Outcome
Both appeals are partially upheld. The criminal convictions remain unchanged, but the defendants' civil liability is reduced to 80%. The compensation for non-pecuniary damages is reduced from 160,000 to 128,000 francs, with 5% interest from March 9, 2018. The case is remanded for a new decision on cantonal costs and indemnities (recital 5).