Facts
In April 1979, a collection of antique weapons was stolen from the villa of R.M. in Versoix (GE). C.F. recovered the stolen goods and returned the weapons collection to A.R., who sold it to A.M. in October 1979. Insurance company X. indemnified R.M. for the stolen weapons collection and was assigned all rights to the stolen property. In December 1992, insurance company X. filed a claim against A.M. to obtain the restitution of all the weapons originating from the theft at R.M.'s. The court of first instance granted the claim, but the cantonal court upheld A.M.'s appeal and dismissed the claim of insurance company X. The latter then filed an appeal for reform with the Federal Tribunal.Considerations
According to the consistent case law of the Federal Tribunal, the degree of diligence required of the purchaser depends on the circumstances. In sectors of activity where goods of dubious origin are frequently offered, such as the antiques trade, the purchaser must exercise a high level of care within the meaning of Art. 3 para. 2 CC. This increased duty of diligence is not limited to the used vehicle trade, but applies generally to sectors exposed to the offer of goods of suspicious origin.
In the present case, the cantonal court considered that the circumstances of the acquisition of the weapons collection did not impose particular attention on the defendant. However, the Federal Tribunal considers that the defendant, as an…