has not been put in movement hv the man: for instance a fork used in agriculture. A pedestrian's raincoat ma\’ bring liability on its guardian when the rider of a motorized bicvcle is injured by a fall as a result ot his brake catching in the raincoat's pocket, d'he article applies when skis are the instrument ot injur\’, e\en when the\’ do not touch the injured person, but the skier does. I'he owner of a building is not thought to ha\ e under his guard snow that has fallen onto its roof 'The cour de cassation has found that the lower court showed no legal basis for its finding that the owner of a building became guardian of snow on the sidewalk without examining whether he had effectix elv exercised in the snow the powers that characterize guard. b) The second aspect of confusion in the anicchits pro\ isions that 1 wish to deal with concerns article 1^86. 'I'lic owner of a huilding is responsible for the injury caused b\' its fall when that occurred as a consequence of a defect in its maintenance or hy a fault in its construction. Our concern is with the last clause. If the collapse was due to a fault in construction the owner of the building may ha\e had no warning and be totally free fromany fault. Liability is again different from that in articles 1382, i^8y The explanation is due, as Domat and the debates on the code make clear,to a matter of Roman law that the I^Vench rejected. .As 1 ha\e mentioned, Roman law in general ga\e no remeth’ for damage caused by a thing, and that included damage by the collapse of a building. But the Romans had a doctrine of damnum infcctum, 'loss not (yet) caused.' If a person had good reason to fear that his neighbor's building would collapse and fall on his land and do damage then he could approach the magistrate who 40 See Watson, Evolution, pp. i2off. 83
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=