Kiloutou’s intention was not to harm the victim of this particularly serious accident, but to determine who should bear the ultimate responsibility. In no case did the company hinder the payment of the sums due to the victim.
On Tuesday 20 November 2018, the Court of Appeal of the Tribunal of Toulouse condemned the company Kiloutou for “renting work equipment that does not comply with the regulations” and “involuntary injuries” resulting from non-compliance.
As a reminder, an accident occurred on 7 October 2010, when an employee of an apprentice training centre in Toulouse became trapped while manoeuvring in reverse an Agria Mot 5.5 motor hoe that had been hired and used the previous day at the Kiloutou branch in Portet-sur-Garonne.
Caught between a hedge behind him and the rotovator, the victim did not manage to stop the machine and his leg was caught in the burrs with dramatic consequences as he unfortunately had to be amputated.
This was a terrible tragedy for the victim and his family, and Kiloutou was all the more sensitive to it because of its constant concern for safety and because it is a requirement of Kiloutou to provide its customers with quality and well-maintained equipment.
Kiloutou chose to appeal against a first conviction in 2014, considering that several elements had not been taken into account by the courts, in particular
- the conditions of use of the machine, which was operating normally on the first day of rental (it had been serviced and its maintenance booklet was in order)
- the distributor and the manufacturer of the machine, who were never questioned, nor were they called into question, without explanation and despite repeated requests, even though the faults complained of were based on non-compliance,
- and the questionable manner in which the expert reports were conducted during the investigation, all of which were incriminating.
In confirming the company’s conviction, the Court did not take into account Kiloutou’s arguments, nor the favourable expert reports submitted, including a third one since the first conviction.
This is why Kiloutou has appealed to the Supreme Court.
This is not a matter of stubbornness aimed at harming the victim of this particularly serious accident, for whom the company reiterates its compassion, but of determining who should bear the final responsibility.
Moreover, contrary to the erroneous information given by the victim’s lawyer and reported in the press, this non-suspensive appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal does not prevent the immediate payment of the sums awarded to the victim by the Court, it being specified that following the decision of the 1st instance a provision of €300,000 had already been paid.
If this payment was not made immediately, this was solely due to Generali, Kiloutou’s insurer at the time. In no case did the company hinder the victim’s settlement, quite the contrary.
On 7 December, Generali, which has been regularly contacted by Kiloutou since the Court of Appeal’s decision, confirmed that the appeal decision would be fully enforced and that the victim would be reimbursed.