Electric Wheelchair Not Considered Motorized Land Vehicle

Extract

[...] Thus, the non-driving VTM victim, driving an electric wheelchair, can only be opposed to their inexcusable fault. This is therefore much harsher towards drivers and pursues an increased protection of victims. This remains criticizable because it highlights a potential inconsistency in the compensation system. In fact, drivers of motorized land vehicles (VTM) can be held responsible and forced to compensate victims, even if the fault does not come from them, but from another user such as an electric wheelchair driver. [...]

[...] the plaintiff, is a motor neuron disease sufferer and suffers from right hemiplegia. She moves outside on an electric powered wheelchair. She was a victim of a road accident on 11 February 2015, while she was moving in a wheelchair, involving a vehicle insured by the defendant company Areas dommage. The plaintiff assigns the defendant insurer for compensation, alleging that the latter refused to compensate her because she would have committed an exclusive fault of her right to compensation for her damages. [...]

[...] On the occasion of her appeal, the plaintiff requests the referral of a priority constitutional question to the Constitutional Council. The Court of Cassation refuses by a judgment of 1 October 2020. Can the driver of an electric powered wheelchair involved in a road accident be considered as the driver of a motorized land vehicle in the sense of the 1985 directive? The Court of Cassation responds negatively. It estimates that the will of the legislator of the no-fault compensation device for non-driving victims pursues a protection purpose towards pedestrians, transported passengers, children, the elderly, and those with disabilities. [...]

[...] It indicates that in the sense of the 1985 directive, the electric powered wheelchair is not a motorized land vehicle. It considers that one cannot consider that the plaintiff had the quality of driver of a motorized land vehicle and therefore of opposing her fault limiting or excluding her right to compensation, in this quality. It cancels and annuls the decision. This decision allows us to question a complex understanding of the notion of motorized land vehicle). But also, on a traffic accident regime favorable to victims . [...]

[...] Unlike VTM drivers, other victims are compensated for bodily harm suffered, without their own fault being opposed to them, except in the case of inexcusable exclusive fault. This regime significantly reduces the impact of the victim's fault on their right to compensation, by imposing strict conditions for exemption from liability. Thus, it ensures that even victims who have committed a simple imprudence do not see their right to compensation limited. Thus, admitting the user driver of a motorized wheelchair as a non-driving VTM victim allows it to be subject to the corresponding regime and therefore to confer a privileged status. [...]