Road-Accident Bodily-Injury Compensation in Morocco

When someone is injured in a road or motor-vehicle accident in Morocco, compensation does not turn on a single online percentage. It rests on a special legal regime, on the compulsory motor insurance behind the responsible vehicle, and — for lasting injuries — on a medical assessment of the harm once the condition has stabilised.

Three questions must be kept apart from the outset: who is liable for the accident, which insurance covers it, and how the compensation for bodily injury is built. They are connected, but they follow different logics, and confusing them is a frequent source of error.

This guide is national and informational. It states the regime in substance, points to the text in force, and deliberately avoids publishing figures, coefficients and deadlines that the 2026 reform changed and that must be checked case by case. For the practical, foreigner-facing side of a collision, our companion guide on a car accident in Morocco sets out the immediate steps.

Bodily-injury compensation after a road accident rests, in Morocco, on a special regime: the dahir carrying law n° 1.84.177 of 2 October 1984 on the compensation of victims of accidents caused by land motor vehicles. That text organises entitlement, the heads of damage that may be compensated, and the framework for building the amount.

Alongside it, the Code des assurances (Law n° 17-99) governs compulsory motor third-party insurance. The bodily-injury claim, the insurer's offer and settlement, and the related time limits are, by contrast, set by the 1984 dahir itself as amended, subject to the transition provided by Article 8 of Law 70.24. General civil-liability rules of the dahir of obligations and contracts (DOC) may form a residual backdrop where the special regime does not answer a question. And the procedure follows the current procedural code, Law 58.25.

The important point is that no single one of these texts governs everything: the 1984 regime is the substantive core for the compensation and for the claim and settlement framework, the Code des assurances governs the compulsory insurance, and the procedural code frames the litigation. This guide describes the regime in substance and cites only the few articles needed to identify the applicable rules; the others should be confirmed against the text applicable to a real file.

The 1984 framework had remained largely unchanged for decades, and its adequacy was widely debated. In 2026 it was reformed: Law n° 70.24, promulgated by dahir n° 1.26.02 of 22 January 2026 and published in Bulletin Officiel no. 7478 of 29 January 2026, amended and supplemented the 1984 regime rather than repealing it.

In substance, the reform modernised the framework — widening its reach to further categories of motor vehicles, broadening the range of persons who may benefit, revaluing reference parameters used in the calculation, and rewriting the provisions on compensation claims and limitation periods. The 1984 dahir therefore remains the backbone of the regime, but as amended.

Because these changes affect figures, beneficiaries and deadlines, this guide does not reproduce specific reformed numbers: they should be read from the consolidated text for the case concerned. Under Article 7 of Law 70.24, the reform applies to damage resulting from accidents occurring from 29 January 2026; damage resulting from accidents before that date remains outside it. The accident date is therefore what identifies the applicable substantive compensation regime, and tables and calculators circulating online may not match the regime that governs a given accident.

Article 8 of Law 70.24 is a separate transition rule. Although the reform rewrote the provisions on compensation claims and limitation periods, Article 8 provides that the previous provisions on those matters continue to apply until the corresponding implementing regulations take effect. The claim and limitation rules that govern a file should therefore be checked for the specific case, rather than inferred from the accident date alone.

The regime is built to protect the victims of bodily injury caused by a land motor vehicle. In practice, the injured person is the primary claimant; where the victim has died, the analysis shifts toward the eligible persons and dependants recognised by the law.

Third parties injured by the vehicle — such as passengers, pedestrians and cyclists — are at the centre of the protective logic. The position of a driver who is themselves injured is more conditioned by the circumstances and by the applicable liability and coverage analysis.

Whether a given person may claim, and on what basis, depends on their position in the accident and on the facts. This guide sets out the categories in substance; the precise entitlements should be checked against the regime applicable to the accident date.

The victim's position in the accident matters. A passenger, a pedestrian or a cyclist injured by a motor vehicle is generally treated as a third-party victim of that vehicle. A motorcyclist may likewise be a victim of another vehicle, or the driver of the vehicle involved, depending on the collision.

The driver of the vehicle involved is in a distinct position: their own compensation depends more closely on the liability analysis and on the coverage in place. A minor victim, and a victim who was travelling for work, may raise additional questions that should be examined specifically.

These distinctions should not be over-generalised: they are starting points, not automatic outcomes. The correct characterisation of each person's position is part of the analysis of the file, not a label that can be assumed in advance.

It is essential not to flatten three distinct ideas. Liability concerns who is responsible for the accident. Coverage concerns which insurance answers for it. Entitlement to compensation concerns whether, and to what extent, a given victim is compensated for their bodily injury.

The special regime is protective of non-driver victims, but that does not mean that every injured person is automatically owed full compensation regardless of the circumstances. Under Article 1 bis 2, added to the dahir by Law 70.24, compensation takes account of the share of liability borne by the person who caused the accident or the civilly liable person, so the responsibility analysis can, depending on the case, affect the compensable share.

This guide states no automatic reduction and no percentage: how the responsibility analysis plays out is a matter for the facts, the evidence and the applicable rules. What can be said is that liability, coverage and quantum are separate questions that must each be worked through.

Motor third-party liability insurance is compulsory in Morocco under the Code des assurances. In a bodily-injury claim, the insurer of the responsible vehicle is generally the party that assesses and, where appropriate, pays compensation to the injured third party.

Several roles must be distinguished: the driver or holder of the vehicle, the insured, the insurer, and the injured third party. The third-party victim's claim runs against the cover behind the responsible vehicle, which is not the same thing as the victim's own contractual relationship, if any, with an insurer.

This is not a general motor-insurance guide, and it does not assert policy exclusions against third-party victims: how far an exclusion can be raised against a victim is a matter for the law in force and the facts. The point here is to place the insurer correctly within the compensation journey.

In the immediate aftermath, the priorities are medical care and preserving what will later matter to a claim. Seeking prompt medical attention is both a health necessity and the origin of the initial medical record that documents the injury.

Practically, it helps to ensure that the accident is properly recorded, to identify the vehicles and their insurance where possible, to keep any documents handed over, and to note the circumstances while they are fresh. These steps support — but do not by themselves determine — a later compensation claim.

This section describes good practice at a national level; the concrete choreography of a specific collision, particularly for a visitor, is covered in the companion foreigner-facing guide. Nothing here should delay necessary medical treatment.

The way the accident is documented weighs heavily on a later claim. A report drawn up by the police or the gendarmerie is, in practice, a central piece: it records the circumstances, the vehicles and often the responsibility elements that the rest of the file will build on.

Other material may help depending on the case — photographs of the scene and the vehicles, the identity and insurance details of those involved, witness information, and any amicable report completed at the scene. No single document is universally decisive, and the usefulness of each depends on what is in dispute.

Gathering and keeping these elements early, before the scene and memories change, markedly strengthens a position. Where a document cannot be obtained immediately, it is worth noting how and where it may later be requested.

Medical evidence is the spine of a bodily-injury claim. The initial medical certificate, hospital and emergency records, imaging, prescriptions, invoices and rehabilitation records together document the injury, its treatment and its evolution.

This documentation concerns the injury caused by the accident itself. Where a separate problem arises from the medical treatment given afterwards — a distinct medical fault — that is a different legal question, addressed in our guide on medical malpractice in Morocco, and it does not, by itself, turn the road-accident claim into a malpractice claim.

Keeping a complete and chronological medical file — from the first contact to the later assessments — is one of the most useful things a victim can do. Gaps in the medical record are difficult to repair after the fact.

For lasting injuries, a key notion is consolidation: the point at which the victim's condition has stabilised, so that the permanent consequences can be assessed. Before consolidation, the situation is still evolving and the permanent impact cannot be measured reliably.

Consolidation matters because the assessment of permanent incapacity — and therefore an important part of the valuation — generally waits for it. Settling or valuing lasting harm too early risks under-assessing consequences that have not yet fully appeared.

There is no single timeline: consolidation is a medical appreciation that depends on the injury and the individual. This guide does not state a fixed period; it explains why the moment of consolidation is a turning point in the file.

Where the injury leaves lasting effects, a medical expert assesses the degree of incapacity. Several actors may be involved along the way: the treating physician who documents the injury, a doctor mandated by the insurer, an amicable medical assessment where the parties agree to it, and — in litigation — a court-appointed medical expert, with the possibility of a counter-expertise where it is available.

The medical expertise in a road-accident file is a specific application of a wider procedural tool. The general regime of court expertise — how an expert is appointed, the adversarial conduct of the measure, and the weight of the report — is set out in our guide on judicial expertise in Morocco.

A crucial point: a private medical report does not automatically bind the insurer, the court or a judicial expert. It is an element of the file, whose weight is assessed alongside the other evidence. Understanding this avoids treating one favourable report as if it settled the assessment.

The assessment usually distinguishes temporary incapacity — the period during which the victim is unable, wholly or partly, to carry on their usual activities while recovering — from permanent incapacity, which reflects the lasting functional consequences once the condition has consolidated.

Permanent incapacity is expressed as a rate set by the medical expert, by reference to an official functional scale. That rate is a medical appreciation of the lasting impairment; it is one of the elements that later feed the valuation, not the whole of it.

This guide states no example rate and no illustrative figure: an incapacity rate is specific to the individual and the injury, and a generic percentage found online cannot stand in for a proper medical assessment.

Depending on the statutory conditions and the evidence, several heads of loss may be discussed. They may include temporary incapacity, permanent incapacity, medical, hospital and pharmaceutical expenses, the need for assistance by another person where applicable, income or professional consequences where relevant, pain and suffering, and aesthetic harm, among others recognised by the regime.

Not every head applies in every case. Which losses are compensable, and to what extent, depends on the victim's circumstances, on the medical findings, and on what can be established. Wording such as "where legally compensable" and "depending on the circumstances" is not caution for its own sake — it reflects how the regime actually works.

The distinction between a head that the law recognises, a head that the medical assessment supports, and a head that the evidence establishes should be kept in mind throughout. A theoretical entitlement that is not documented is difficult to obtain in practice.

For permanent incapacity, the compensation is built from a combination of elements rather than a single figure. In substance, it can depend on a legally relevant reference basis, on the victim's age, on earnings or income where the law makes them relevant, on the medically assessed incapacity, and on the applicable responsibility share — with additional heads added where their conditions are met.

This guide explains the structure and deliberately stops there. It states no coefficient, no table row, no percentage and no sample amount: Moroccan law works from a statutory framework and a medical assessment, and no foreign method, table or formula should be imported to fill a gap.

The practical consequence is important: a generic online percentage or calculator cannot, by itself, safely determine the final compensation. A reliable figure comes from applying the current framework to a properly documented, medically assessed file — not from a number typed into a website.

Where earnings or professional consequences are relevant to the valuation, the evidence of income matters. Depending on the situation, this may include salary records, an employment contract, CNSS material, tax declarations, accounting records, and, for the self-employed, business accounts and other proof of activity.

The quality of this evidence can materially affect the discussion of income-related heads. The dahir allows income to be proved by any means of proof. Under Article 1 bis, salary and professional income mean income net of tax over the twelve months preceding the accident, and may not be taken below the minimum set in the annexed statutory table; under Article 6, a victim who does not establish income is treated as if it were equal to that minimum. Proven income therefore still matters, and the statutory minimum operates as the floor and fallback the dahir provides.

Assembling income evidence early, and coherently with the medical file, avoids a common gap: a serious injury whose economic consequences are real but poorly documented.

Medical, hospital and pharmaceutical expenses connected to the injury may be part of the claim where the conditions are met. Invoices, prescriptions, hospitalisation records and proof of payment support this head, as may the cost of rehabilitation and of any assistance the victim's condition requires.

Keeping every receipt and invoice, and linking them to the treatment they correspond to, makes this head far easier to establish. Expenses that are real but unproven are hard to recover.

Where treatment continues over time, it helps to keep the documentation current, so that the file reflects the actual course of care rather than only its first stage.

Beyond economic losses, non-economic harm may be discussed where it is recognised — such as pain and suffering, and aesthetic prejudice where the injury leaves lasting marks. Whether and how far these are compensable depends on the regime and on the medical findings.

These heads are, by nature, assessed rather than computed from invoices, which makes the medical expertise and the description of the consequences particularly important. This guide states no scale and no figure for them.

As with every head, a non-economic harm that is genuinely suffered but not described and supported in the file is difficult to have recognised. The medical assessment is often the natural vehicle for documenting it.

When the victim dies, the analysis shifts. Compensation is then discussed for the eligible persons and dependants recognised by the law, and the heads of loss change in nature — turning toward economic dependency, funeral expenses, and non-economic loss where it is recognised. Under Article 1 bis 2, funeral expenses, the transport of the body and compensation for moral pain resulting from the victim's death are not subject to the apportionment of liability.

Establishing the relationship and the dependency becomes central, and the evidence needed differs from that of a survivor's claim. The 2026 reform touched this area, including the range of persons who may benefit.

For that reason, this guide does not publish beneficiary shares, fixed amounts or automatic entitlements: who may claim after a death, and on what basis, should be checked against the regime applicable to the accident date.

Not every accident has a solvent, identified insurer behind it. Where the responsible vehicle cannot be identified — for example after a hit-and-run — or is uninsured, or where the insurer has failed, a guarantee mechanism may become relevant for bodily injury: the Fonds de Garantie des Accidents de la Circulation.

In substance, the fund exists so that bodily-injury victims are not left without recourse in those situations. Its intervention is subject to conditions, and the documentation of the accident — in particular an official report reflecting the absence of an identified or insured responsible party — plays an important role.

This guide flags the existence and logic of the fund at parent level only. It does not set out the detailed procedure, pin article numbers, publish filing periods, or guarantee eligibility, all of which should be checked against the framework in force; a dedicated treatment could follow.

Many road-accident bodily-injury claims are handled, at least in part, with the insurer of the responsible vehicle. In substance, the claim is presented with its supporting evidence, a medical assessment takes place, the insurer evaluates the file, and — where appropriate — a settlement may be proposed on the basis of that evaluation.

A settlement proposal should be read carefully and against the medical findings, particularly the assessment of permanent consequences after consolidation. Accepting, refusing or challenging an offer are all possibilities, and their consequences depend on the terms and on the law in force.

This guide states no numeric offer deadline and imports no foreign settlement mechanics: the applicable timing and the effect of a settlement should be checked against the current Moroccan framework. It also does not say that acceptance is always reversible or always final — that depends on the terms.

A victim who considers that an incapacity assessment understates the harm, or that a settlement proposal does not reflect the injury, is not without options. Depending on the case, a counter-expertise may be sought, the medical assessment may be contested, and the dispute may be taken to court.

The strength of a challenge usually rests on the medical file and on the coherence of the evidence rather than on assertion. A well-documented file, with a clear account of the consequences after consolidation, is the foundation of any serious contest of the assessment.

Because a challenge may lead to litigation and, ultimately, to a decision that must be carried out, it is worth thinking about the whole sequence — including enforcement — rather than the assessment stage alone.

Where the matter is not resolved amicably, the compensation may be pursued before the courts, and the route depends on the circumstances. Compensation may be sought as a civil-party claim within criminal proceedings arising from the accident, or through a standalone civil action; the insurer is typically involved as the party that answers for the responsible vehicle.

A favourable decision is not the end of the road: obtaining a judgment and actually collecting the compensation are distinct stages. The enforcement of a decision, including recovery against the party liable to pay, is dealt with in our guide on enforcing a judgment in Morocco.

This guide does not assert that a single court route fits every case, and it pins no procedural article. The applicable procedural backdrop is Law 58.25; the exact route should be chosen for the specific file.

A road accident that causes injury may give rise to criminal proceedings for the traffic offence, alongside the civil question of compensating the victim. The two are related: a victim may, in appropriate cases, pursue compensation as a civil party within the criminal proceedings, or bring a separate civil action.

This guide addresses that relationship at a high level only. It is a compensation guide, not a guide to traffic offences, criminal penalties, licence sanctions or criminal defence, which follow their own logic.

What matters for the injured person is to understand that a criminal case and a compensation claim are not the same thing, and that the choice between routes has practical consequences that should be assessed for the situation.

Road accidents in Morocco also affect foreign residents, tourists and Moroccans living abroad (MRE). The substantive regime is the Moroccan one; being foreign does not create a separate compensation right, but it does raise practical, evidential and procedural questions that deserve specific attention.

Common issues include foreign medical records and their translation, authentication of documents where relevant, coordinating treatment received abroad with the Moroccan assessment, evidencing foreign income, dealing with a foreign employer's records, coordinating with insurers, following the local procedure, and enforcement.

Handling these questions well — especially where decisions are taken from abroad — is often what makes the difference between a claim that is theoretically sound and one that is practically manageable. The point is coordination and evidence, not a different set of rights.

In a road-accident bodily-injury claim, the contribution of a lawyer in Morocco is very concrete. It begins with establishing the accident date and therefore the applicable compensation regime, before or after the 2026 reform, analysing liability and the coverage in place, preserving the accident evidence, reviewing the police or gendarmerie material, and organising the medical file.

It continues with monitoring consolidation before the lasting harm is assessed, reviewing the incapacity findings and challenging expert conclusions where that is justified, documenting earnings and losses, identifying the heads of damage that may be compensable, and checking how the applicable statutory framework applies to the file — without reducing it to a calculator.

It extends to insurer correspondence, reviewing settlement proposals, litigation strategy, coordinating civil and criminal aspects, judicial-expertise strategy, procedural filings, control of the applicable deadlines, appeal where relevant, and the sequencing of enforcement. The aim is not to "consult a lawyer" in the abstract, but to carry out a series of precise acts. This guide is informational and is not an offer of representation.

For a foreign victim, an MRE, or an insurer or employer based abroad, a road-accident claim in Morocco often calls for coordination. Counsel in Morocco can work with foreign law firms, international counsel and in-house legal teams to align the local strategy with the constraints of those involved.

The coordination may bring together, as needed, foreign insurers, medical specialists, medical or forensic experts, accountants, employers and translators — so that foreign medical records, foreign income evidence and cross-border insurer questions are handled coherently with the Moroccan assessment.

This cooperation is described in an informational and institutional frame: it explains how the various skills fit together around a compensation file, not any relationship of representation.

To verify the applicable framework, one should refer to the official sources: Dahir 1.84.177 of 2 October 1984, considered as law, on the compensation of victims of accidents caused by land motor vehicles, as amended and supplemented by Law n° 70.24 (promulgated by dahir n° 1.26.02 of 22 January 2026 and published in Bulletin Officiel no. 7478 of 29 January 2026, including its Articles 7 and 8 on application in time and transition), and the Code des assurances (Law n° 17-99).

The Secretariat General of the Government (SGG) and the Official Bulletin publish the texts in force; the Ministry of Justice's Adala portal gives access to them. For the insurance and guarantee-fund dimension, the insurance and social-provision supervisor (ACAPS) publishes institutional materials on motor-accident compensation, and the guarantee fund (FGAC) has its own institutional information.

Scholarship and press may help understanding, but they cannot stand as authority for a precise figure, deadline or citation. Because the 2026 reform changed important parameters, the exact articles, amounts and deadlines should be confirmed against the consolidated text in force for each file.