THE BOTTOM LINE
- The Burden of Proof is High: In workplace accidents, the employee only needs to prove they were injured on the job. The employer must then prove it met its strict duty of care, or that the employee was deliberately reckless.
- Investigate Immediately: Failing to thoroughly investigate and document the circumstances of an accident immediately after it occurs is a critical error. Any uncertainty about the exact cause will be held against the employer.
- Proactive Safety Trumps General Rules: Having general safety policies is not enough. This ruling underscores the employer’s duty to actively inspect for, identify, and remedy specific physical hazards in the workplace, such as uneven flooring.
THE DETAILS
In a significant reversal of a lower court decision, The Hague Court of Appeal has found an employer liable for injuries an employee sustained after tripping and falling in a greenhouse. The employee, a temporary worker, fractured his elbow after he claimed to have tripped over a metal rail protruding from the concrete floor. The employer disputed this, arguing it was a simple misstep due to inattention. The Court of Appeal’s decision serves as a powerful reminder for all businesses about the stringent nature of employer liability under Dutch law.
The core of the court’s reasoning revolved around the burden of proof, as stipulated in Article 7:658 of the Dutch Civil Code. The court reiterated that the legal bar for an employee is low: they must simply establish that they suffered an injury in the course of their work. Once this is done, the legal burden shifts entirely to the employer. The employer must then prove either that it fulfilled its comprehensive duty of care to provide a safe workplace, or that the accident was caused by the employee’s intent or deliberate recklessness. In this case, any ambiguity about the precise location or cause of the fall worked against the employer, not the employee.
The employer’s defense ultimately failed because it could not overcome the evidence presented by the employee, which included dated photos and eyewitness testimony confirming a broken, protruding rail on the day of the accident. The court dismissed the findings of a site inspection conducted a year after the incident as irrelevant to the conditions on the day of the fall. The ruling highlights that an employer’s duty of care is not passive; it is an active requirement to ensure the physical workplace is free from hazards. Relying on general safety instructions is insufficient when a specific, preventable danger—like a faulty piece of flooring—exists.
SOURCE
Source: Gerechtshof Den Haag
