Priority of the rail: when the lorry driver is solely responsible for a level crossing accident

Imagine the scene: a misty morning in Sartène, you are at the wheel of your lorry, in a hurry to deliver goods. The level crossing is not guarded, no barriers. You look, you listen, nothing comes. You proceed. Too late. The train appears, the collision is inevitable. Injuries, property damage, a life turned upside down. Who is responsible? This question is asked by hundreds of motorists and landowners each year, particularly in the Ajaccio area where ungated level crossings are numerous. The judgment of the Court of Cassation of 9 May 1973 (No. 72-10.920) provides a clear answer: the priority of the rail is absolute, and the driver who disregards it is solely responsible, even if the train did not sound its audible warning. A decision that still resonates fifty years later.

The facts: a story like many that happen every day

On 12 July 1970, around 6 a.m., a lorry belonging to company X crossed an ungated level crossing located in the municipality of Sartène. The driver, Mr Y, neither saw nor heard the train coming. The impact was violent: the train partially derailed, several passengers were injured, and SNCF suffered significant property damage. SNCF, in its capacity as employer and autonomous social security fund, sued Mr Y and his insurer for compensation for its loss. It invoked the driver's liability on the basis of Article 1382 of the Civil Code (now Article 1240), which provides that any act of a person which causes damage to another obliges the person by whose fault it occurred to make reparation. But the case did not end there. On appeal, SNCF argued that the train had not sounded its audible warning, which would constitute fault on the part of SNCF itself, engaging its liability on the basis of Article 1384 paragraph 1 (liability for things). The trial judges dismissed this argument: they held that the absence of an audible warning was not wrongful because the driver had an obligation to stop and check that no train was coming before proceeding. The Court of Appeal therefore ordered Mr Y to fully compensate SNCF. He appealed to the Court of Cassation, but the Court dismissed his appeal, upholding the Court of Appeal's decision.

The reasoning of the court — dissected

The heart of the dispute lay in two questions: 1) Was SNCF at fault? 2) Who should bear the ultimate liability? The Court of Cassation, in its judgment of 9 May 1973, answered unambiguously: no fault could be attributed to SNCF, and the driver's disregard of the rail's right of way was the original and determining cause of the accident. In other words, the driver is solely liable under Article 1382 (now Article 1240). The Court clarified that the trial judges did not have to examine the claim under Article 1384 paragraph 1 (liability for things) since they had already found personal fault on the part of the driver. This reasoning is important because it rules out any idea of apportionment of liability: the driver cannot hide behind an alleged defect in the railway equipment. The priority of the rail is absolute, and it applies to all road users, regardless of the condition of the level crossing or the signalling. The fact that passengers heard an audible warning – as noted in the judgment – is merely a factual element that does not change the driver's duty of care. This decision is part of consistent case law: the rail remains priority, and a driver who crosses a level crossing without ensuring that no train is coming commits an inexcusable fault.

What this means for you — practically

For landowners and drivers, this decision has very concrete implications. If you are a driver: you must imperatively stop at every level crossing, even ungated, and only proceed after ensuring that no train is coming. In the event of an accident, you will be held entirely responsible, and your insurer will have to compensate SNCF (or the railway operator) for material and personal injury damages. For example, an accident in Sartène cost a local carrier €150,000, fully covered by his insurance, but with a sharp increase in premium. If you are a neighbouring landowner: you may face noise nuisance from train whistles. But this decision reminds us that these warnings are not an absolute obligation: SNCF is not required to sound them at every crossing. However, if a lack of maintenance of the level crossing (e.g., vegetation obstructing visibility) were proven, SNCF's liability could be engaged on another basis. If you are a real estate professional: be vigilant when purchasing or selling a property near a level crossing. Inform your clients of the risks and obligations. A buyer in Ajaccio recently gave up purchasing a property after discovering an ungated level crossing 200 metres away, fearing nuisance and risks.

Four tips to avoid this type of dispute

• Scrupulously respect signage at level crossings: even ungated ones, they are preceded by a danger sign and a stop sign. Always stop, look and listen. Never rely on the absence of an audible warning.
• Anticipate weather conditions: fog, rain, night can hide the approach of a train. Slow down and be even more cautious, especially in areas like Sartène where visibility is sometimes reduced.
• Inform your relatives and employees: if you are a business owner, remind your drivers of the rail priority rules. A poster in the depot can prevent a tragedy.
• Check the maintenance of the surroundings of the level crossing: if you own adjacent land, report to SNCF any vegetation that obstructs the view. This may reduce your liability in the event of an accident.
• Consult a lawyer before taking action: in case of a dispute, do not underestimate the importance of an expert opinion. A lawyer specialising in property law, such as Maître Zakine, can help you determine liability and prepare your defence.

Further reading: related case law and developments

This 1973 decision is part of a consistent line. One can cite a judgment of the Court of Cassation of 13 November 1957 (Bull. civ. II, No. 646) which had already established the principle of absolute priority of the rail. More recently, the Court of Cassation confirmed this approach in a judgment of 8 June 2000 (No. 98-19.876): a driver who crosses a level crossing despite lowered barriers is presumed liable. However, a notable development occurred with the law of 5 July 1985 (Badinter law) concerning road traffic accidents: it facilitates compensation for non-driver victims, but does not modify the driver's liability towards SNCF. The current trend is therefore towards maintaining strictness: the driver remains primarily responsible, except in exceptional cases of proven failure of railway signalling (e.g., barrier malfunction). For landowners, this means vigilance is required, and any legal action must be solidly supported.

Checklist before taking action

• Who is liable in the event of an accident at an ungated level crossing? The driver who proceeds without ensuring that no train is coming is solely liable, on the basis of Article 1240 of the Civil Code.
• What if the train did not sound its audible warning? This argument does not exonerate the driver: the priority of the rail is absolute, and the absence of a warning does not constitute fault by SNCF.
• Will my insurance cover me? Yes, but your premium will increase sharply. The insurer compensates SNCF, then exercises a recourse against you.
• Can I sue SNCF for lack of maintenance of the level crossing? Yes, if you prove a lack of maintenance (vegetation, defective signalling). But this is difficult: SNCF has a limited duty of care.
• What are the time limits for taking action? You have 5 years from the accident to bring a liability action (Article 2224 of the Civil Code). In practice, act quickly to preserve evidence.

Besoin d'un conseil personnalisé ? Contactez Maître Zakine — première consultation 30 min à 45€.

Are you in a similar situation? An initial 30-minute consultation with Maître Zakine (€45) can save you months of proceedings — and often much more. Book an appointment →