Facts
On May 7, 1973, an accident occurred in which the car of garage owner [B.] left the road and plunged into a stream. [B.] suffered serious injuries and had to close his garage business. He received insurance benefits and a disability pension, but considered these to be insufficient and made additional claims against [S.] for years. In an "agreement" dated March 7, 1981, [S.] promised to pay B. 40,000 CHF "for the car accident caused".
On June 1, 1982, [S.] filed a lawsuit with the District Court of Gruyère to declare this debt acknowledgment null and void. The court declared the debt acknowledgment null and void, as [B.] had signed it under serious and grave threat. [B.] appealed to the Cantonal Court of Fribourg, which upheld the first instance judgment. [S.] has appealed this judgment with an appeal and a constitutional complaint.
Considerations
The Cantonal Court had to examine whether the debt acknowledgment was null and void due to threat (Art. 29 and 30 CO). It found that unenforceability only occurs if the contract was concluded at all or with the given content due to the fear induced. The threat must be directed against the body and life, freedom or property, whereby fear of the assertion of a right is only taken into account if the distress of the person concerned is exploited to obtain excessive advantages (Art. 30 para. 2 CO).
The Cantonal Court concluded that the findings of the contested judgment are contradictory and make the application of the law impossible. It could not be proven that justified fear and not…