Loss of amenity (préjudice d'agrément) compensates the victim's inability to continue regularly practising a specific sporting or leisure activity, and includes the limitation of their previous practice (Cass. 2e civ., 29 March 2018, no. 17-14.499). It is assessed in concreto, starting from the activity that the victim proves they practised before the accident.
Loss of amenity (préjudice d'agrément) is a head of damage in the Dintilhac classification (nomenclature Dintilhac, the court-endorsed classification of heads of personal-injury loss), listed among the permanent non-pecuniary losses, that is, those that persist after the date of stabilisation (consolidation). The report of the working group chaired by Jean-Pierre Dintilhac (July 2005) defines it as the head of damage intended exclusively to compensate the specific loss of amenity linked to the victim's inability to regularly practise a specific sporting or leisure activity.
The Cour de cassation adopted this definition and added the limitation of practice to it. In a published judgment of 29 March 2018 (Cass. 2e civ., no. 17-14.499), it held that loss of amenity consists of the victim's inability to continue regularly practising a specific sporting or leisure activity, and that this head of damage includes the limitation of their previous practice. The victim therefore does not have to prove that they have given up their activity entirely: the limitation of their practice falls within this head of damage.
Loss of quality of life and inconvenience in daily life do not fall within loss of amenity: they come under functional deficit. Loss of amenity has a specific object, a particular activity that the victim used to practise.
The Cour de cassation laid this down in a published judgment of 28 May 2009 (Cass. 2e civ., no. 08-16.829): loss of amenity covers exclusively the inability to regularly practise a specific sporting or leisure activity, whereas loss of quality of life and the disturbances experienced by the victim in their living conditions come under functional deficit after consolidation. The Dintilhac report, for its part, specifies that permanent functional deficit is not to be confused with loss of amenity, which has a specific object.
| Head of damage | Period | What it compensates |
|---|---|---|
| Temporary functional deficit (DFT) | Before consolidation | Inconvenience in daily life, loss of quality of life and temporary deprivation of amenities |
| Permanent functional deficit (déficit fonctionnel permanent, "DFP") | After consolidation | Functional after-effects, permanent pain, loss of quality of life and disturbances in living conditions |
| Loss of amenity (préjudice d'agrément, PA) | After consolidation | Inability or limitation to practise a specific sporting or leisure activity |
Two consequences for valuation. First, loss of quality of life is claimed under permanent functional deficit, not under loss of amenity. Second, there is no stand-alone temporary loss of amenity: before consolidation, temporary functional deficit includes temporary loss of amenity (Cass. 2e civ., 5 March 2015, no. 14-10.758).
Loss of amenity presupposes a specific activity, practised before the harmful event. The burden of proof lies with the victim. The Cour de cassation quashed a decision that had compensated this head of damage without examining whether the victim had shown that they practised a specific sporting or leisure activity prior to the illness (Cass. 2e civ., 31 March 2016, no. 14-30.015, delivered in a case of inexcusable fault of the employer). The requirement of a particular activity also applies under ordinary law: in a published judgment delivered in a medical accident case, the first civil chamber quashed a decision that had accepted loss of amenity "whatever the activity practised", on the basis of inconvenience in daily life (Cass. 1re civ., 8 February 2017, no. 15-21.528).
The Cour de cassation restated this requirement on 4 September 2025: it quashed a decision that had assessed this head of damage on the basis of the medical exhibits and the effects of the illness on living conditions, without examining whether the previous practice of a specific activity had been shown (Cass. 2e civ., no. 23-12.826, unpublished). The file must therefore bring together the exhibits that establish the practice before the accident, its regularity and its level, then link them to the expert's conclusions on what the victim can still do.
In practice, the argument is built in three stages:
The Dintilhac report states that this head of damage must be assessed in concreto, taking into account all of the victim's individual parameters, and cites age and level. Valuation therefore starts from the victim's own situation: the activity in question, the previous practice established by the exhibits, and what the after-effects found by the expert still allow them to do.
In the published decisions in Plato's case-law base, the amounts awarded under this head of damage vary widely from one decision to another. Hence the value of comparing the file with decisions concerning a comparable activity and impairment.
Loss of amenity is a distinct head of personal loss, in the words of the judgment of 28 May 2009. Yet the subrogation claims of third-party payers are exercised head by head, solely on the indemnities that compensate losses they have covered, excluding losses of a personal nature (article 31 of law no. 85-677 of 5 July 1985). The same rule appears in article L376-1 of the Social Security Code for social security funds.
The same article 31 provides for an exception: recourse may be exercised against a personal head of loss if the third-party payer establishes that it has actually and previously paid the victim a benefit that indisputably compensates that head of loss. Outside this case, the indemnity awarded for loss of amenity goes to the victim with no deduction of the third-party payers' outlays.
A well-valued loss of amenity rests on a solid body of evidence and on comparable decisions: same type of activity, same degree of limitation, similar age. This is the work that Plato, the only AI specialised in personal injury, automates: it ties each amount to its base of more than 84,000 quantified decisions, and every figure remains traceable to the decision it comes from. To position a specific file, the tool compares it with real decisions rather than delivering a grid: see Plato for personal injury. This head of damage forms part of the overall valuation described in our complete guide to valuing personal injury, alongside souffrances endurées (the pain and suffering endured up to consolidation, rated 1 to 7) and permanent cosmetic damage.
What is the definition of loss of amenity (préjudice d'agrément)?
According to the Cour de cassation, it is the victim's inability to continue regularly practising a specific sporting or leisure activity, this head of damage including the limitation of their previous practice (Cass. 2e civ., 29 March 2018, no. 17-14.499).
Does a mere limitation of the activity give rise to loss of amenity?
Yes. The judgment of 29 March 2018 holds that this head of damage includes the limitation of previous practice: the victim does not have to prove that they have given up their sporting or leisure activity entirely.
Does loss of amenity cover loss of quality of life?
No. Loss of amenity concerns a specific activity that the victim used to practise. Loss of quality of life and disturbances in living conditions come under permanent functional deficit (Cass. 2e civ., 28 May 2009, no. 08-16.829).
Is there such a thing as temporary loss of amenity?
Not as a stand-alone head of damage. Before consolidation, temporary functional deficit includes temporary loss of amenity (Cass. 2e civ., 5 March 2015, no. 14-10.758).
How do you prove loss of amenity?
The victim must show that they practised a specific sporting or leisure activity prior to the harmful event (Cass. 2e civ., 31 March 2016, no. 14-30.015). The file establishes the practice, its regularity and its level, then links them to the expert's conclusions.
Can social security bodies exercise their recourse against loss of amenity?
No, save for an exception. It is a loss of a personal nature, excluded from third-party payers' recourse by article 31 of the law of 5 July 1985, unless the third-party payer proves that it paid a benefit that indisputably compensates this head of loss.