It does mean that a correlation was found between his work and the final outcome,
Yes, but under American law the standard would be whether or not that consequences was
foreseeable. This is what I mentioned in my very first comment on the topic.
This is why PBL's example with a gun is not useful. Playing with a loaded gun it is foreseeable that someone could get hurt. I don't believe that is true with a mechanic bungling a repair on an airplane.
It's also important to note that under American law what is foreseeable is not what is foreseeable to the expert or even to another mechanic or what his license says. The standard is what is foreseeable to the "average man".
Applying that standard, what is foreseeable to the average man, I find it a simple fantasy that this mechanic could foresee that this incorrect repair was going to blow up the Concorde. I don't believe it.
I am not an expert on French law and I don't pretend to be. But I do understand American law. And in my opinion if this ruling is allowed to stand, the fact that it is legally correct under French law is so much the worse for France.