Public hospital liability
PUBLIC HOSPITAL RESPONSIBILITY
A doctor practicing within a public hospital is not personally liable for harm caused to a patient due to their fault.
Indeed, the doctor acts as a public service agent, and the patient is considered a user of a public service. As such, only the public healthcare institution can be held liable.
If, however, the doctor commits a personal fault separate from their official duties, then civil liability may apply — but only in such cases.
A personal fault separate from official duties is defined by case law as a particularly serious fault that cannot reasonably be attributed to the normal functioning of the public service. This includes, for example, a fault committed with intent to harm, for personal gain, or a blatant breach of professional ethics.
Since the law of March 4, 2002, the administrative liability of public healthcare institutions can be invoked under Article L1142-1 of the Public Health Code, just like the liability of private healthcare professionals and institutions. Therefore, apart from the exceptional cases provided for in Article L1142-1, the administrative liability of a public healthcare institution can only be established if the patient provides proof of a fault, a damage, and a causal link between the two.
A medical expert assessment will be required to establish this fault. In principle, no judge will rule on medical liability without first obtaining the informed opinion of a qualified medical expert.
The competent courts for handling administrative liability of public healthcare institutions are:
• the Administrative Court at first instance,
• the Administrative Court of Appeal,
• and, if necessary, the Council of State (Conseil d’État).
PUBLIC HOSPITAL RESPONSIBILITY
PUBLIC HOSPITAL RESPONSIBILITY
A doctor practicing within a public hospital is not personally liable for harm caused to a patient due to their own fault.
Indeed, the doctor acts as a public service agent, while the patient is considered a public service user. Therefore, only the liability of the public healthcare institution can be engaged.
However, if the doctor commits what is known as a personal fault separable from their duties, they may then incur personal civil liability—but only under those specific circumstances.
A personal fault separable from official duties is defined by case law as a particularly serious fault that cannot reasonably be attributed to the functioning of the public service. Examples include misconduct committed with intent to harm, for personal gain, or a fault that is inexcusable under professional ethics.
Since the law of March 4, 2002, the administrative liability of public healthcare institutions may be invoked under Article L1142-1 of the Public Health Code, just like the liability of private professionals and institutions. Therefore, except in the exceptional cases mentioned in Article L1142-1, the administrative liability of a public healthcare institution can only be engaged if the patient proves the existence of a fault, a damage, and a causal link between the two.
A medical expert assessment will be required to establish such fault. In principle, no judge will rule on medical liability without first obtaining the opinion of a qualified expert.
The competent courts for hearing administrative liability cases involving public healthcare institutions are:
• the Administrative Court (first instance),
• the Administrative Court of Appeal,
• and, if necessary, the Council of State (Conseil d’État).
Public hospital liability
PUBLIC HOSPITAL RESPONSIBILITY
A doctor practicing within a public hospital is not personally liable for harm caused to a patient due to their own fault.
Indeed, the doctor acts as a public service agent, and the patient is considered a user of a public service. As a result, only the public institution’s liability may be engaged.
However, when the doctor commits what is known as a personal fault separable from their duties, they may then incur civil liability, but only in such cases.
Case law defines a personal fault separable from official duties as a particularly serious fault that cannot reasonably be attributed to the normal functioning of the service. This includes, for instance, a fault committed with intent to harm, for personal interest, or one that is inexcusable under professional ethics.
Since the law of March 4, 2002, the administrative liability of public healthcare institutions may be engaged under Article L1142-1 of the French Public Health Code, just like the liability of private professionals and institutions. Outside of exceptional circumstances provided for in Article L1142-1, the administrative liability of a public healthcare institution can only be established if the patient proves the existence of a fault, a damage, and a causal link between the two.
A medical expert assessment is required to demonstrate this fault. In principle, no judge will rule on medical liability without first obtaining the informed opinion of a qualified expert in the field.
The courts competent to hear cases involving the administrative liability of public healthcare institutions are:
• the Administrative Court at first instance,
• the Administrative Court of Appeal on appeal,
• and, if applicable, the Council of State (Conseil d’État).
PUBLIC HOSPITAL LIABILITY
LIABILITY OF PRIVATE PRACTITIONERS AND PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS
Medical liability refers to the obligation imposed on healthcare professionals to compensate for harm caused within the framework of a care contract.
The civil liability of a healthcare professional or a healthcare facility applies to practitioners operating privately or within private healthcare institutions. The healthcare professional undertakes to provide the patient with attentive care, in accordance with the current state of scientific knowledge.
What are the conditions for establishing the liability of private practitioners and institutions?
First, there must be a fault or a health product that caused damage.
One of the challenges in such cases lies in proving both the fault and the damage. The burden of proof falls on the person invoking the fault—that is, the patient.
The difficulty stems from the fact that the patient, who is not medically trained, must convince a judge—who is also not medically trained—that the care provided was not attentive or did not meet the standards of established medical science.
This is why, except in exceptional cases, no judge will make a decision without relying on an expert report prepared by a qualified expert.
Thus, proving fault will necessarily require an expert medical assessment.
The same applies to the evaluation of damages. Before damages can be translated into monetary compensation, they must first be assessed in terms of severity by an expert. The expert will also determine whether the healthcare professional or the institution can be held liable.
The expert will also examine whether there is a causal link between the alleged fault and the damage. This causal link may be partial—in which case, the healthcare professional will still be held liable, but only for a “loss of chance,” assessed as a percentage. In some cases, multiple parties may be held jointly liable.
In evaluating the causal link and damages, the expert must also take into account the victim’s pre-existing condition, meaning any predispositions or pre-existing pathologies that may have contributed to the alleged damage. Civil liability in healthcare is therefore a complex legal field, and compensation for harm is equally complex.
It is essential not to act lightly and to seek the support and assistance of qualified professionals. Especially since some mistakes are irreversible and can cause you to lose your right to compensation.
Unfortunately, many victims consult the firm only after having undergone medical expert assessments that are unfavorable to them. Once these negative or poorly conducted reports exist, it becomes extremely difficult to obtain fair compensation. Often, the desire to save money—or simply the lack of financial resources—leads victims down paths that ultimately lead nowhere.