Fatal Shark Attack: The COM and the State found liable and ordered to pay damages
The family of the swimmer who died following a tiger shark attack in December 2020 has filed a lawsuit with the Administrative Court of Saint Martin to seek compensation from the Collectivity (COM) and the State for the emotional distress caused by her death. The Minister of the Interior has asked the Administrative Court of Appeals to stay the execution of the Administrative Court’s judgment handed down on May 21, 2026.
Summary of the Facts
On December 10, 2020, a 38-year-old woman was swimming 150 meters from the shore at Orient bay when, between 1:50 p.m. and 2:00 p.m., she was attacked by a tiger shark, resulting in her death. Her body was found near a floating trampoline; she was not in an area where swimming was prohibited or marked as unsupervised or dangerous.
The Roles of the COM and the State regarding swimming
The Collectivité is the competent authority for regulating swimming within 300 meters of the shoreline. Therefore, the president of the COM must “ensure the safety of swimmers on the beaches and, in particular, warn of dangers that exceed those against which swimmers are normally expected to protect themselves.” In other words, to warn of dangers other than the ordinary dangers that swimmers are normally expected to watch out for themselves.
If the COM fails to fulfill these obligations and a danger exists, it is up to the préfet (the representative of the State) to implement the necessary measures to protect swimmers.
The allegations against the COM and the préfet
Because on December 10, 2020, the COM had neither taken measures to assist and rescue swimmers, nor warned of the risk of tiger sharks in the water, nor taken steps to keep the sharks away from the shore, the family of the victim considers that the COM committed “negligent omissions.”
They also believe that the préfet is liable because he failed to take measures to address the COM’s failures. Furthermore, the family argues that, even if the State did not commit any fault, it may be held liable and ordered to pay compensation because it created the circumstances giving rise to the risk by participating in the establishment of the nature reserve (intended to protect sharks) and in the ban on fishing for tiger sharks in waters open to swimmers.
Sixteen family members filed two petitions with the administrative court in September 2024 and May 2025 seeking an order requiring the Collectivité and the State to pay them the sum of 268,000 euros in compensation for the damages suffered.
The family had also requested that the COM be ordered to take all necessary measures to remedy its negligent failures, but the court stated that, under the Code of Administrative Justice, it does not have the authority to issue injunctions to a local authority; therefore, this request was denied. Only the claim for full compensation was granted, in the amount of 268,000 euros.
The positions of the COM and the préfet
The Collectivité contends that it did not commit any tortious act and that the damages suffered were not its fault. As for the préfet, he contends that the State did not commit gross negligence, that the president of the Collectivité cannot be blamed for any failure to act, that the shark attack was unforeseeable, that the State cannot be held strictly liable since the natural presence of wild animals does not constitute a special risk, that the victim acted recklessly, and that the amounts claimed for damages are excessive.
Both parties consider that the causal link between the accident and the lack of warning signs has not been established.
The Court's Findings
The court limited itself to assessing the liability of each party—including that of the victim—in order to determine the damages. It concluded that liability was shared among the COM, the State, and the victim.
Two factors led the court to this conclusion. First, “according to the director of the Saint Martin Nature Reserve, the presence of sharks in Saint Martin’s waters is well-known and long-standing, and has been regularly monitored since 2011.” Second, “a female tiger shark had been found dead, washed up on the shore of Plum Bay beach, two days before the accident.”
However, despite this discovery, the COM neither informed swimmers of the dangers posed by tiger sharks in the waters, nor took measures to keep tiger sharks away from swimming areas, nor reduced the size of these areas, nor prohibited swimming, nor strengthened security and rescue measures.
Faced with the local government’s “inaction,” State authorities failed to take “any measures—at least no sufficient ones—abou the threats to public order posed by the confirmed presence of tiger sharks in the waters off Saint Martin during that period,” an “event which, although exceptional, was not unforeseeable.”
The court therefore found that the COM had failed in its obligation to ensure the safety of swimmers on its beaches, that the State had not stepped in to fulfill this obligation, and consequently that both entities—for negligent failure to act and gross negligence, respectively—must be held liable.
The court also noted that the victim, described as “an experienced swimmer,” “could not have been unaware that a female tiger shark had been found dead” two days earlier. It further notes that, according to several witness statements, “the sea was murky that day due to the rain that had fallen in the preceding days; that the reduction in water sports activities due to COVID-19 encouraged aquatic wildlife to come closer to the shore than usual; and that fish leaping out of the water were visible from the beach.”
Recalling that “every swimmer is required to exercise a minimum degree of caution to protect themselves from the dangers inherent in swimming in the sea,” the court acknowledged that the victim, “by deciding to swim far from the shore under these conditions,” also acted with negligence “sufficient to exonerate the municipality of Saint-Martin and the State from 10% of their liability.”
Assessment of Damages
The beneficiaries sought compensation in the amount of 110,000 euros for the harm resulting from the imminent threat of death and the suffering endured. According to the autopsy, since the victim was attacked while still alive, compensation is warranted for the damages resulting from the suffering she endured and the anguish of her imminent death, and the sum of 40,500 euros is awarded to her beneficiaries.
Furthermore, the court awarded compensation for the emotional distress suffered by the parents, sisters, brothers-in-law, first cousins, grandmother, aunt, and nephews and nieces, totaling 42,300 euros.
These amounts are to be paid jointly and severally by the COM and the State. All of these sums are subject to interest and capitalization beginning June 15, 2025.
The COM and the government will also jointly pay the family members a sum of 3,000 euros to cover legal expenses.
State Appeal
The Minister of the Interior has asked the Bordeaux Administrative Court of Appeals to stay the enforcement of the judgment issued by the Saint-Martin Administrative Court on May 21, insofar as it concerns him.
He argues that “given the total amount of the award and the number of beneficiaries involved, the actual recovery of the full amount paid could prove particularly uncertain and expose the government to the risk of a permanent loss.”
After reviewing the request, the court found that the amounts awarded to each family member were “relatively modest” and that there was no evidence to suggest that “enforcement of this judgment would expose the State to the risk of permanently losing these sums.” Consequently, on September 14, it rejected the Interior Minister’s motion.
