Le préjudice esthétique temporaire. L'expert devancé par le juge judiciaire…

Since the release of the Dintilhac report in July 2005, a new physical damage list which has a huge impact as well on the evaluation as on the compensation of physical damage has been suggested. The temporary aesthetic damage (PET), partly taken into account before in the permanent aesthetic damage, and/or in the endured pain, and/or in the amenity damage, is one of the new chiefs of damage of this Dintilhac list. On the basis of a review of the decisions taken by the French judicial courts, we have been able to show that the judges seem to have made this Dintilhac list theirs, whereas the experts do not systematically take it into consideration so far, going even much more ahead of what was expected, in a direction which looks like a kind of “drift of the case law”. It seems therefore necessary that the actors of the Dintilhac report take clearly position on a clearer definition of the PET. The urgency of this matter has been underlined by a very recent (September 2009) workshop of the SFML/FFAMCE 09, which we comment according to our work data.