This site uses cookies.
Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site,
while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.
For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
French to English translations [Non-PRO] Law/Patents - Insurance
French term or phrase:lui reprocher sa propre faute
This is from a civil case relating to a road traffic accident in France (involving a stationary vehicle and another vehicle that drove into it from behind) and a dispute over insurance payouts. I'm having issues with the middle of the sentence "et l'on ne peut lui reprocher sa propre faute à l'exception de sa faute inexcusable,..". The full sentence is as follows:
Soit la victime est conductrice, alors la faute de M. X est à l'origine exclusive de l'accident, soit la victime est piétonne lors de l'accident et l'on ne peut lui reprocher sa propre faute à l'exception de sa faute inexcusable, qui se définit comme une faute volontaire, d'une exceptionnelle gravité, exposant sans raison valable son auteur à un danger dont il aurait dû avoir conscience.
Explanation: In the context of insurance, one speaks of "fault", rather than "mistake" in this context. In fact, it seems from the Asker's later discussion entry that the victim was a man. A couple of people seem to have imagined it was a woman, having failed to appreciate the fact that, in French, after the feminine "victime" related pronouns and nouns will also take the feminine form, even if the victim was a man. However, if the sex of the victim was unknown I think that nowadays the acceptable way of dealing with this is by using "they" as a gender-neutral pronoun.
I think that SafeTex is completely wrong in his interpretation that " the writer wants to suggest that she is wholly at fault for the second "event". On the contrary:
" l'on ne peut lui reprocher sa propre faute à l'exception de sa faute inexcusable, qui se définit comme une faute volontaire, d'une exceptionnelle gravité, exposant sans raison valable son auteur à un danger dont il aurait dû avoir conscience."
In spite of the missing "pas", it is clear from how the sentence continues " à l'exception de sa faute inexcusable …", that the writer is saying that the victim cannot be blamed for his own fault unless the fault is inexcusable because being deliberate, exceptionally serious etc. This extract actually does not go on to say whether or not those circumstances applied. Presumably, your text does go on to make a statement about that.
An example of a fault to which those exceptions applied would be that of a pedestrian who suddenly stepped into the road without looking (but with no suicidal intention), when an oncoming car was too close for the driver to be able to stop in time to avoid hitting them. In that case, the pedestrian would have been responsible for "une faute volontaire, d'une exceptionnelle gravité, exposant sans raison valable son auteur à un danger dont il aurait dû avoir conscience."
Thank you all for your input on this. The victim was indeed a man btw. I have gone with this, "...and cannot be blamed for being at fault unless that fault were inexcusable...,". I'm not sure who to give the points to as all your answers have helped me in some way. If I could share the points out I would. I think I will have to give them to B D Finch for introducing the terms "blame" and "fault" which are appropriate in an insurance context. Thanks again.
We started with a "clear and simple" situation according to some but we now have according to the same persons
""Soit [assertion A], soit [assertion B]" is a sentence structure used to present two alternative hypothetical situations, even if [assertion A] and [assertion B] themselves are not in the conditional mode." or "The accident was certainly and definitely very real, but the sentence is about two hypothetical situations, only one of which can/must apply to the real accident."
for a situation where the victim was indeed BOTH, first the driver (in their car) and then a pedestrian (outside their car) even if I agree that there is a choice as to how we perceive the victim's status (driver or pedestrian) at the time of accident
And added to this, we have some real absurdities (wrongly attributed to me) like I said the victim "was dead" when I had in fact said the "victim was run over".
All this to end up with "You can't blame the victim for his mistakes/errors" which undermines the very raison d'être for a court of law where people ARE blamed for their mistakes, errors, negligence, etc.
You're absolutely right about this being a statement of two hypothetical situations. One would expect the actual argument about what applied to the real event to follow that scene-setting.
The conditional isn't used here because the sentence starts with the subjunctive that tells us that it's hypothetical.
It does now seem that the victim was a man "as he'd broken down" (Asker 14:07 Oct 5).
- including a translation - looks simple and clear once solved.
I did have years and years of "training" in having often to decipher 100-200-300 word sentences, but even without that, some elements should be easy to spot:
"Soit [assertion A], soit [assertion B]" is a sentence structure used to present two alternative hypothetical situations, even if [assertion A] and [assertion B] themselves are not in the conditional mode.
The accident was certainly and definitely very real, but the sentence is about two hypothetical situations, only one of which can/must apply to the real accident.
So the explanation that
"The victim probably got out of the car after the first accident (where she is viewed as a driver) and then must have got run over (as a pedestrian). For the first "event", she is not at fault but the writer wants to suggest that she is wholly at fault for the second "event"."
Fails on the basis of misinterpreting the sentence structure - by assuming that bothhypothetical situations really happened in the order they were presented!
Also, expecting the legal logic to always follow common sense is, say, being very optimistic
You're welcome and I agree with you that the whole thing was far from evident. Perhaps others do read and interpret French better than you or me at a glance, but it was hardly "simple and clear". So don't let anything put you off asking for help in the future.
1 The use of the plural for what we now know was a single victim
2 Because you CAN blame someone for their own mistake. The answer proposed is almost the opposite of what we need and what the lawyer really means.
The solution is in my view to say something like "you cannot accuse the victim of having made a mistake, nor can she be blamed for the accident unless she had done something reckless...(which was not the case in the lawyer's view)
I agree with Daryo: it really is simple and clear enough, at least to translate the part you are asking about:
If the person was not driving, but was out of their vehicle, then: "... they cannot be blamed for being at fault in the accident, unless..." that fault were serious and inexcusable ... — it seems to me one needs to understand the 'à l\'exception de' as an implicit 'except where...'; but implying that this was NOT the case here.
It isn't really contradictory: The deceased lady, had she still be in her stationary vehicle, clearly couldn't have been responsible for the accident, it would have had to have been M. X's fault; and even outside her vehicle, she could not have been to blame, UNLESS she had done something deliberately and consciously stupid — like step out into the traffic, etc. Obviously, merely standing in front of a stationary vehicle can hardly be said to be "reckless or foolhardy" behaviour!
Anyway, you may have posted around the time Rebecca further explained the situation. There is only one victim while you're answer suggests there are 2+ (them)
the lawyer representing the victim is covering the two possible scenarios - the victim was either in or out of their car at the time of the accident - to prove that in both cases the victim is not responsible for the accident.
Which any good lawyer would do - close in advance the possibility for the opposing party to start finding "alternative" presentations of the facts more favourable to their client - here the victim's lawyer is making irrelevant any arguments from the other party about the victim being or not being in the car at the time of the accident.
Try reading it more or less as I guessed but with the known context
Either the victim can be seen as the driver who got out but was not at fault (you normally get out of a broken car) or as a pedestrian who did something wrong (did not put up warning signs, did not go behind barrier etc.) and was largely/entirely at fault.
Thanks SafeTex. I should have made it clearer. The victim was already out of the car and at the front examining the engine as he'd broken down. The other vehicle drove into the back of the car, thereby propelling the car forward and actually killing the victim. One of the issues is over the positioning of the car. The driver in the other vehicle claims that it was half in the road and half on the hard shoulder. The sentence seems contradictory to me, but I might be reading it wrong.
The victim probably got out of the car after the first accident (where she is viewed as a driver) and then must have got run over (as a pedestrian). For the first "event", she is not at fault but the writer wants to suggest that she is wholly at fault for the second "event". If we can agree on the situation, the translation may become easier. Alternatively, don't even wait for others to reply and ask the client for an explanation
Automatic update in 00:
Answers
3 hrs confidence: peer agreement (net): +2
he/they cannot be blamed for his/their own fault
Explanation: In the context of insurance, one speaks of "fault", rather than "mistake" in this context. In fact, it seems from the Asker's later discussion entry that the victim was a man. A couple of people seem to have imagined it was a woman, having failed to appreciate the fact that, in French, after the feminine "victime" related pronouns and nouns will also take the feminine form, even if the victim was a man. However, if the sex of the victim was unknown I think that nowadays the acceptable way of dealing with this is by using "they" as a gender-neutral pronoun.
I think that SafeTex is completely wrong in his interpretation that " the writer wants to suggest that she is wholly at fault for the second "event". On the contrary:
" l'on ne peut lui reprocher sa propre faute à l'exception de sa faute inexcusable, qui se définit comme une faute volontaire, d'une exceptionnelle gravité, exposant sans raison valable son auteur à un danger dont il aurait dû avoir conscience."
In spite of the missing "pas", it is clear from how the sentence continues " à l'exception de sa faute inexcusable …", that the writer is saying that the victim cannot be blamed for his own fault unless the fault is inexcusable because being deliberate, exceptionally serious etc. This extract actually does not go on to say whether or not those circumstances applied. Presumably, your text does go on to make a statement about that.
An example of a fault to which those exceptions applied would be that of a pedestrian who suddenly stepped into the road without looking (but with no suicidal intention), when an oncoming car was too close for the driver to be able to stop in time to avoid hitting them. In that case, the pedestrian would have been responsible for "une faute volontaire, d'une exceptionnelle gravité, exposant sans raison valable son auteur à un danger dont il aurait dû avoir conscience."
B D Finch France Local time: 11:42 Native speaker of: English PRO pts in category: 92