Francourt v Didon & Ors (CS 273/1998) [2006] SCSC 91 (1 March 2006)

Francourt v Didon & Ors (CS 273/1998) [2006] SCSC 91 (1 March 2006)

The first three Defendants, as police officers, deliberately inflicted grievous bodily harm on the Plaintiff without justification, constituting a faute in law. The Fourth Defendant is not vicariously liable as the acts were outside the scope of employment. The Plaintiff is entitled to damages, but the quantum is reduced due to lack of permanent disability and partial contribution to infection by the Plaintiff.

Citation
[2006] SCSC 91
Parties
Plaintiff: Francourt; First Defendant: Gaetan Didon; Second Defendant: Desire Boniface; Third Defendant: Gaetan Rene; Fourth Defendant: Commissioner of Police
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
1 March 2006
Case Number
CS 273/1998
Procedural Posture
Civil (delict/tort) / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff against First, Second, and Third Defendants jointly and severally; claim against Fourth Defendant dismissed.
Legal Topics
Assault and Battery, Vicarious Liability, Damages Assessment
Source Language
English
Tort Law Employment Law Assault and Battery Vicarious Liability Damages Assessment

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Francourt

Plaintiff

Gaetan Didon

First Defendant

Desire Boniface

Second Defendant

Gaetan Rene

Third Defendant

Commissioner of Police

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (delict/tort) / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendants unlawfully inflicted bodily harm on the Plaintiff
  2. 2 Whether the Fourth Defendant is vicariously liable for the acts of the first three Defendants
  3. 3 Quantum of damages payable

Ratio Decidendi

The first three Defendants, as police officers, deliberately inflicted grievous bodily harm on the Plaintiff without justification, constituting a faute in law. The Fourth Defendant is not vicariously liable as the acts were outside the scope of employment. The Plaintiff is entitled to damages, but the quantum is reduced due to lack of permanent disability and partial contribution to infection by the Plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Plaintiff against First, Second, and Third Defendants jointly and severally; claim against Fourth Defendant dismissed.

Orders

  • First, Second, and Third Defendants to pay Plaintiff R200,000 jointly and severally with interest at 4% per annum from date of plaint and costs.