Whilst being neither an expert in law French or English
...
and apparently you're not even an expert at reading all the previous posts .
the mechanic decided to do something outside of the known limits of what his actions should be. No company/authority can be blamed for someone doing something against instruction, unless the company knew and agreed or permitted the act.
Yes it is,.., and that's the finding of the court. A company is responsible for its employee's actions, too.
But in fact, Continental wasn't only found guilty for the mechanic's actions, it was as well - and more -
because the mounting and rigging of that thrust reverser were totally out of the manufacturer's tolerances. for a very long time. The mis-alignment of the reverser door caused a friction on the wear strip that *wore* it a lot faster than it should, hence the need for replacement of the strip on repeated occasions and
very probably the reason why the mechanic chose a titanium strip (probably in the hope that it would stand the wear a lot more than it did.). I let the engineers amongst you draw their conclusion on that sort of thinking.
Proof of the numerous instances of that strip replacement is that
the investigators found 256 rivets or rivet heads inside the cowling (I could just about set up a rivet shop with that number ! )
So please, spare us the whining about Continental's responsibility and the poor mechanic being made a scapegoat, because to me that's exactly what you mean.
I might add that during the trial, Continental and their lawyers never questioned the above findings, concentrating on some half-cooked theory that the aircraft was on fire way before the wear strip entered the plot.
That's also why among their recommendation the BEA asked for an audit of Continental maintenance. Whether it has been done , I don't know...but I've never heard of it.