Facts
R. J. suffered a cervical trauma as a result of a traffic accident on August 3, 1983. She then filed a claim for compensation against the company [B. AG] with the Court of Appeal of the Canton of Bern. On August 23, 1990, the investigating judge ordered, with the agreement of the parties, that the proceedings be limited to the issues of liability and degree of disability, which would be decided in an interlocutory judgment. On February 20, 1991, the Court of Appeal ruled that the defendant had acknowledged its basic liability and that the plaintiff was 100% incapable of working in her professional activity and 50% incapable in her household tasks due to the accident of August 3, 1983.Considerations
The Federal Tribunal does not enter into the merits of the appeal for reform filed by the company [B. AG] against this interlocutory judgment. Indeed, the legal conditions for the treatment of such an appeal are not sufficiently established. The defendant merely asserts that the dismissal of the claim would make a probative procedure superfluous, without demonstrating how it would be particularly long, costly or complex, as required by Art. 50 para. 1 FSCA.
Furthermore, the contested interlocutory judgment only decides questions of fact, namely the incapacity for work and the natural causal link.…