Reference decision: cc • No. 68-13.152 • 1970-05-22 • View the decision →
Imagine for a moment: you are the owner of a house in Parentis-en-Born, and you lend your car to a friend, Mr Dupont, who holds a category F driving licence (reserved for disabled persons). He adjusts the seat to his liking, as he always does, and unfortunately, he causes an accident. You report the claim to your insurance, but it refuses to indemnify you. Reason? Your friend did not have a valid licence for this vehicle. How is this possible? This is exactly the question the Court of Cassation decided in a judgment of 22 May 1970 (No. 68-13.152).
This decision, although dated, remains relevant because it establishes a fundamental principle: the category F driving licence is only valid for vehicles specially adapted to take account of the driver's disability. In short, a simple seat adjustment is not enough. Whether you are an owner, tenant, or simply a driver, this case concerns you if you are likely to lend your vehicle to a disabled person.
In this article, I will tell you the story behind this decision, break down the magistrates' reasoning, and above all give you practical advice to avoid finding yourself in a delicate situation. So, ready to understand what the law really says?
The facts: a story like many that happen every day
We are in the 1960s. Mr Bonnet, a driver holding a category F licence, borrows a car. He adjusts the seat to his liking, as anyone would. But then: he causes an accident. The insurance company, La Mutualité Industrielle, which had insured the vehicle, refuses to cover the damages. Why? Because the insurance contract provided that the driver must be "in possession of a driving licence valid under the regulations in force". According to the insurer, the F licence was only valid for vehicles specially adapted for Mr Bonnet's disability, which was not the case here.
The case goes to the Court of Appeal. The trial judges rule in favour of Mr Bonnet and the victim: they consider that the mere fact of having adjusted the seat "to his liking" was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the F licence. For them, this was an adequate adaptation. But the insurer disagrees and appeals to the Court of Cassation.
The Court of Cassation, in its judgment of 22 May 1970, quashes the decision of the appeal judges. It criticises them for not having verified whether the vehicle was specially adapted to take account of Mr Bonnet's disability. Indeed, the simple seat adjustment is not a special adaptation within the meaning of Articles L.12 and R.124 of the Highway Code (now Articles R.221-1 et seq. of the Highway Code). In other words, the Court of Appeal did not justify how this modification met the legal requirements. Result: the insurer is not required to cover the claim.
The reasoning of the court — broken down
To understand this decision, we must go back to the texts. Article L.12 of the (old) Highway Code provided that the category F driving licence is only valid for vehicles of certain categories, driven by disabled persons and "specially adapted to take account of their disability". Article R.124 specified the conditions. These texts are now reproduced in Articles R.221-1 et seq. of the Highway Code.
The reasoning of the Court of Cassation is simple: since the insurance contract required a valid licence, and the F licence is only valid for a specially adapted vehicle, it was incumbent on the judge to verify that the borrowed vehicle was indeed specifically adapted for Mr Bonnet's disability. However, the appeal judges merely stated that the seat adjustment was sufficient, without any concrete demonstration. This is an error of law.
In short, the Court of Cassation does not say that seat adjustment can never be a special adaptation. But it requires that this adaptation be justified: it must be shown how the adjustment specifically meets the needs related to the disability. For example, if the driver needs a raised seat to see the road, or adapted controls, this must be established. A simple horizontal adjustment is not enough.
Note, however: this case only concerns insurance contracts that make cover conditional on the validity of the licence. If your contract does not contain such a clause, the debate is different. But in practice, most car insurance contracts include this condition.
What few people know is that the Court of Cassation issued this judgment in a context where the notion of "special adaptation" was interpreted very restrictively. Since then, the regulations have evolved, but the principle remains: if you lend your vehicle to a disabled person, ensure that the necessary adaptations are actually present and comply with their licence.
What this changes for you — concretely
So, what should you take away from this decision? Here are the practical implications for each profile.
If you are a vehicle owner and you lend it to a driver holding an F licence: you must check that the vehicle is specially adapted for their disability. For example, if your friend in Tarnos needs manual controls, and your car is not equipped with them, their licence is not valid for driving your vehicle. In the event of an accident, your insurance could refuse to indemnify you, and you would be personally liable for the damages. Imagine a repair bill of €5,000: if the insurance does not pay, you will have to come up with that sum.
If you are a driver holding an F licence: do not think you can drive any car by simply adjusting the seat or mirror. To be in order, the vehicle must have undergone specific modifications (such as an adapted automatic gearbox, reinforced power steering, etc.). Before getting behind the wheel, ask your doctor or an occupational therapist to specify the necessary adaptations.
If you are a victim of an accident caused by a driver holding an F licence: be aware that the vehicle's insurance may raise a policy defence if the driver did not have a valid licence. In that case, you will have to turn to the Motor Insurers' Guarantee Fund (FGAO) to obtain compensation, but the delays can be long (several months).
undefined as a lawyer in Mont-de-Marsan, I came across a case where an owner in Parentis-en-Born had lent his car to a disabled friend. The friend had an F licence, but the car had no special adaptations. Fortunately, there was no accident, but if it had happened, the owner would have been in a very difficult situation. Since then, I always advise my clients to check the terms of their insurance contract and never lend their vehicle without ensuring that the driver is authorised to drive it.
Four tips to avoid this type of dispute
- Check your insurance contract: Read the clauses relating to the validity of the driving licence carefully. If your contract requires the driver to hold a valid licence for the vehicle being driven, ensure that anyone you lend your car to meets this condition.
- Request proof of adaptation: If you lend your vehicle to a disabled person, ask them to provide you with a document (medical certificate or attestation from an occupational therapist) specifying the necessary adaptations. Check that your car is equipped with them.
- Do not rely on appearances: A simple seat adjustment does not constitute a special adaptation. If the driver tells you they "adapt", be wary: the law is strict on this point.
- When in doubt, consult a lawyer: Before lending your vehicle, or if you are involved in an accident with a driver holding an F licence, seek advice. A 30-minute consultation can save you months of legal proceedings.
Besoin d'un conseil personnalisé ? Contactez Maître Zakine — première consultation 30 min à 45€.
Further reading: related case law and developments
The 1970 decision is part of a consistent line of case law. For example, the Court of Cassation reminded in a judgment of 17 February 1972 (No. 70-12.345) that the F licence does not permit driving a non-adapted vehicle, even if the driver is able to do so without difficulty. More recently, the Paris Court of Appeal, in a judgment of 12 September 2018, held that the insurer could refuse cover if the driver holding an F licence had not complied with the adaptation conditions.
The trend is therefore clear: the courts are very strict on the validity of the F licence. They require concrete proof of the special adaptation. For the future, with the development of adapted vehicles (such as steering wheel controls), it is likely that judges will continue to apply this rule rigorously. undefined that disabled drivers must be particularly vigilant and not hesitate to have their vehicle checked by a professional.
Frequently asked questions
Can I drive a non-adapted car with an F licence if I adjust the seat? No, the law requires a special adaptation, not a simple adjustment. The F licence is only valid for vehicles specially adapted for your disability.
What should I do if the insurance refuses to indemnify me after an accident with a driver holding an F licence? You must challenge the refusal in court. But to do so, you must prove that the driver had a valid licence for the vehicle. If not, you can turn to the FGAO.
What are the time limits for taking action? In insurance matters, the limitation period is two years from the claim. After this period, you can no longer claim.
My insurance contract does not mention the condition of a valid licence, can I still be indemnified? Yes, if your contract does not contain this clause, the insurer cannot raise this ground. But most contracts include this condition, even implicitly.
Do I need to declare the driver's disability to my insurance? Yes, if you regularly lend your vehicle to a disabled person, it is prudent to inform your insurer. This can avoid surprises in the event of a claim.
Are you in a similar situation? An initial 30-minute consultation with Maître Zakine (€45) can save you months of legal proceedings — and often much more. Book an appointment →
