The litigation of personal injury occupies a unique position in employment law. civil liability. Behind each compensation claim lies a human situation, often marked by a brutal rupture.
Assessing damages following an accident is therefore a particularly delicate exercise for the courts.
The judgment under review is precisely in line with this issue, inviting questions about the classification of income received after the harmful event.
When financial equilibrium stands in the way of compensation
In this case, the victim of a road traffic accident suffered multiple injuries resulting in various losses and sought compensation for them.
On appeal, the judges upheld his claims, but considered that no loss of professional income could be established.
The Court of Appeal had found that the victim, who ran a car garage, had been forced to rent out her premises after her accident and was receiving rental income higher than that generated when she was running her business.
She concluded no compensation for loss of professional income could be awarded.
In other words, the trial judges reasoned by strictly comparing the overall level of resources before and after the accident, considering that the victim's financial equilibrium was not affected.
Rent is no substitute for professional activity
This reasoning, which was unsatisfactory for the victim, did not find favour with the Cour de cassation, which ruled that the income generated by the rental of the premises used before the accident for his professional activity does not are not professional income.
The High Court here makes a clear distinction between income from a activity carried out personally and those from the property management.
The rent received is a property right and not a labour benefit. They cannot therefore legally compensate for the loss of earnings resulting from the inability to work.
To equate these two categories of income would be to confuse them. asset logic and compensation logic.
The firm recall of principle of full compensation
This decision fully applies the principle of full compensation for the victim's loss, without loss or profit. In practical terms, this principle means that the victim must be fully compensated for all of his or her losses, without getting rich.
It is therefore quite logical that rental income, even from the premises where the professional activity was carried out, does not have the same status as other income. quality of professional income, but belong to a separate category.
The opposite solution would have meant refusing any compensation for loss of earnings and making compensation dependent on the property choices made by the victim after the accident.
Each income received must therefore be analysed in the light of its specific nature in order to ensure fair compensation in accordance with the principles governing personal injury law.
Ultimately, the solution adopted by the Cour de cassation is a timely reminder that compensation for professional injury is assessed with regard to the the victim's ability to carry out his activity, It is not the strategies that she may have implemented to limit the economic consequences of her incapacity.
Judgment reference: Cass. Civ 2ème of 6 November 2025, no.23-21.633
English (UK) 
Français 
Italiano