Housesitting in France

Since the Loi n° 2003-9, every in-ground private pool must be fitted with at least one of four standardised safety devices — a barrier, an immersion alarm, a security cover, or an enclosure (norms NF P90-306 to -309). The obligation, and a fine of up to €45,000, fall on the owner, not a temporary occupant. But a sitter who leaves the cover off isn't clear of it: if a child drowns on their watch, ordinary fault and 'garde' liability can reach them. Drowning is the leading accidental-death risk for young children at private pools, which is why the rule is so blunt.

France's liability for things in one's keeping (Code civil art. 1242) is strict and broad enough to reach even a trespasser — that kernel of the legend is real. What defeats the claim is the victim's own fault: a deliberate, criminal intrusion is normally treated as the sole cause of an ordinary injury, which clears the keeper entirely (the Cour de cassation requires the victim's act to be the exclusive cause for full exoneration). Genuine exposure narrows to the ugly cases — a deliberate trap, force out of all proportion, or a property that was itself dangerously defective. As the person minding the home, a sitter briefly stands in that keeper's shoes — so the line is worth knowing. Not the automatic payout of the legend; not nothing either.

France's drink-drive limit is 0.5 g/L of blood — below England's 0.8, and close enough that one large glass can put a smaller person over. For anyone in their first three years on a licence it drops to 0.2 g/L, effectively zero. At 0.8 g/L, or for refusing the test, it stops being a fine and becomes a criminal offence carrying up to three years and a €9,000 fine. A single modest glass might keep a larger adult under the line, but the margin is thin and far stricter than the long-lunch cliché suggests.

Article 1243 of the Civil Code puts liability on the owner OR 'whoever is making use of' the animal — the keeper at the time of the damage. A quick favour (just a feed, a single walk) usually leaves the owner liable; but keeping, feeding and walking a dog across a whole sit can pass that 'garde' to the sitter, so a bite on James's watch can be James's liability. The sting is insurance: an owner's home policy generally won't cover an occasional keeper, and a sitter from abroad may have no cover at all — so confirming your own responsabilité civile before the sit is the real protection, not an afterthought.

From 1 November to 31 March, France suspends most evictions of people from their homes — the trêve hivernale, a genuine and distinctive protection. But it's aimed at tenants and occupants of a residence, not a device for a guest to overstay, and a clear, time-limited licence keeps a housesit well clear of the tenancy framework it belongs to. The honest catch runs the other way: because France protects occupants so strongly, a long winter sit that genuinely sours is harder to end mid-season than a summer one — worth weighing before signing up to five months under someone's roof.

Filming someone in a private place without their knowledge can breach article 226-1 of the Penal Code — up to a year's imprisonment and a €45,000 fine, one of the strictest camera regimes in Europe. A camera that might film the sitter must be made known to them, by a notice at the filmed area or a written note, and must not film them constantly. Footage should not be kept more than a month. Disclosed and trained on the dog's bowl, it's fine; hidden and trained on the sitter, it crosses into an offence. The same law binds the sitter too — James can't secretly record others in the home either.

Money isn't the test. Across legal systems, what makes an arrangement binding is that two people genuinely agreed to it and meant it to count — not whether cash changed hands or anything was signed, and it can be spoken or shown by conduct rather than written down. (Some systems look for something given on each side — here, James's care for Sarah's keys and a roof; others ask only that the promise was seriously meant. A housesit clears either bar.) So 'no cash, nothing signed' is the wrong line everywhere. The subtler, equally universal catch: a purely social favour can fall short of an intended legal commitment, and even a binding deal is painful to prove once memories differ. Agreeing clear terms up front helps with both, which is the point of agreeing them.

In most systems an agreement can be oral or formed by conduct; a signature and a formal document aren't what make it binding. What's hard about an informal deal isn't its validity — it's proving what was actually agreed once memories differ. Writing the terms down doesn't create the obligation; it records it, so nobody has to argue about it later.