In the case of theft of objects in a car, the accuracy of the evidence is necessary

A manager of a business is the victim of a theft of various objects that were inside his car, parked in a parking lot during a trade show. Witness testimonies corroborated these facts by stating that “cases” placed in the trunk of his vehicle had been stolen, but without further details.

The manager then asks his insurance company to exercise his guarantee against theft, providing him with a list of the various stolen objects in question.

When he refuses, the manager takes him to the Court of First Instance in order to obtain compensation for the damage.

The High Court and then the Court of Appeal rejected his claim for compensation on the ground that it had not been established that the objects whose theft had been declared "were found in the vehicle that had been searched in the parking lot of the salon".

The manager then decided to go before the Court of Cassation, which confirmed the Court of Appeal's position on the ground that the witness statements referred only to a "business theft" without further details and that, as a result, the manager did not provide proof that the various items he had provided the list "actually found themselves in his vehicle, at the time when he had been visited by third parties".