Hand Controls for Test Drives - Disability Rights Win
Author: Potter Handy
Published: 3 Aug 2017 - Updated: 1 Jun 2026
Publication Type: Reports & Proceedings
Contents: Synopsis - Definition - Introduction - Main - Insights, Updates - Related Publications
Synopsis: This report covers a U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, ruling that affects how car dealerships treat customers who rely on hand controls to drive. The decision is authoritative because it interprets the Americans with Disabilities Act directly, resolving a disagreement among district courts and setting binding precedent that businesses open to the public must make reasonable modifications to their practices. For people with disabilities, seniors, and others who depend on hand controls, the ruling is useful because it confirms a practical right that many shoppers assumed they already had: the ability to test drive a vehicle on equal footing before committing to one of the largest purchases most households ever make. The case grew out of one driver's refused request and now carries weight for dealerships nationwide.*
At a Glance
- 1 - Temporary hand controls are inexpensive, easy to install and remove, work with nearly all vehicles, and require no permanent alteration or interference with safety features
- 2 - The case began in July 2014 when DCH Honda of Mission Valley refused to consider a paralyzed customer's request to use temporary hand controls to test drive a Honda Odyssey
- 3 - Dealerships may now only refuse such requests if they can demonstrate that providing hand controls would be unreasonably burdensome, judged case by case
- Topic Definition: Hand Controls
Hand controls are aftermarket or factory-fitted devices that let a driver operate a vehicle's accelerator and brake by hand rather than with the feet, typically through a lever mounted near the steering column. They allow people with lower-limb paralysis, amputations, or other mobility conditions to drive standard cars and trucks safely. Temporary versions can be fitted and removed quickly without altering the vehicle, which is why they are well suited to test drives, while permanent installations are common for a person's own car.
Introduction
Car Dealerships to Provide Hand Controls for Test Drives for Disabled
This week, in a win for both disability rights and consumer rights, the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, ruled that individuals who rely on hand controls to operate their cars and trucks have an equal right to test drive their vehicles before purchasing them.
Main Content
Buying a new car is both exciting and a big decision. Cars give us freedom of movement, and are usually the second biggest purchase we make in our lives, after our homes. The ability to choose the right vehicle for them can be especially meaningful for people with disabilities.
"While many people with disabilities do rely on public transportation, others prefer to drive their own vehicles to go places where public transit does not go, whether for work or for play, or simply preferring the increased freedom cars provide to set your own schedule and take the most direct route," said Emily Smith Beitiks, Associate Director of the Paul K. Longmore Institute on Disability at San Francisco State University. "If a disabled person wants to purchase a car, they need hand controls in order to be able to test drive it just like anyone else, ensuring that they can purchase the vehicle that's right for their body and lifestyle."
Temporary hand controls are inexpensive relative to the cost of a vehicle, easy to install, easy to remove, universal to virtually all vehicles, and do not require any permanent alteration to the vehicle or affect the functioning of any safety feature. In other words, there is no good reason a dealership cannot offer test drives to people who utilize hand controls.
Yet when Jack Karczewski, who is paralyzed from the waist down, wanted to test drive a Honda Odyssey in July 2014, the sales representatives and managers at DCH Honda of Mission Valley refused to even consider his request to use temporary hand controls, or do a modicum of research to find out how cheap and easy to install temporary hand controls are. Their refusal effectively banned not only Mr. Karczewski from shopping there, but anyone else who might rely on hand controls. The message was clear - If you use a wheelchair, your business is not welcome here.
Mr. Karczewski, rightly believing his money spends just as well as anyone else's, sought redress in the Southern District of the United States District Court. Mr. Karczewskiwas represented by the Center for Disability Access. While the lower Court originally held that a car dealership is not required install temporary hand controls for test drives and dismissed Mr. Karczewski's claims, on July 10, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, reversed that decision.
This month the Ninth Circuit, resolving a split among district courts, held that the Americans with Disabilities Act does in fact require businesses that are open to the public to "make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures, when such modifications are necessary to afford such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to individuals with disabilities." In short, the higher court held DCH Honda had a duty to consider Mr. Karczewski's request.
"This decision is more than a win for our client as an individual," said Attorney Mark Potter. "Car dealerships across the nation now have a clear, affirmative duty to process these requests to provide hand controls for test drives. Rather than being allowed to maintain a blanket policy that hand controls are not provided, the dealerships will need analyze each request individually on a case-by-case basis. Dealerships will only be able to refuse to provide hand controls if they can show doing so is unreasonably burdensome. The end result is going to be that most large car dealerships are going to have to provide hand controls for test drives from now on."
Insights, Analysis, and Developments
Editorial Note: What makes this ruling notable is how small the obstacle was relative to the principle at stake - a set of temporary, removable controls that cost a fraction of the vehicle itself stood between one customer and a fair chance to shop like anyone else. By treating that refusal as a violation rather than a business preference, the Ninth Circuit shifted the default for an entire industry, turning what had been a patchwork of inconsistent dealership policies into a clear, affirmative duty to weigh each request on its own merits.Attribution/Source(s): This quality-reviewed publication was selected for publishing by the editors of Disabled World (DW) due to its relevance to the disability community. Originally authored by Potter Handy and published on 3 Aug 2017, this content may have been edited for style, clarity, or brevity.
* Editorial additions by Ian C. Langtree.