The subdistrict court ruled that the client company is liable for the damage suffered by the employee as a result of a workplace accident. The client company had failed to meet its duty of care under Section 7:658(1) of the Dutch Civil Code.
Facts
The employee joined a staffing agency as a mechanic on 27 May 2019 and was subsequently placed with a client company operating a metal-recycling business. Part of the work involves loading sea vessels with scrap metal using a quayside crane. The scrap metal is regularly compacted to create more space. This work is carried out by machine operators. The employee worked for the client company as a machine operator. A workplace accident occurred during this work: a piece of scrap shot out and struck the employee’s knee, causing injury. He held the client company liable for his injury under Section 7:658 BW. The client company argued it had not breached its duty of care, since it had given the employee all the necessary instructions to work safely.
Ruling
The subdistrict court noted that the extent of measures that can be required of an employer depends on the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the work, the likelihood of an accident occurring, the severity of the possible consequences of an accident, and how burdensome the necessary safety measures would be. Section 7:658(4) BW provides that the client company (alongside the employer) can be held liable for damage suffered by the employee.
It was established that the employee suffered a workplace accident during his work and, as a result, suffered damage. The client company argued it was not liable for the injury. The subdistrict court found that some damage (knee injury) had indeed resulted from the accident.
The client company had to prove it had met its statutory duty of care. It was established that a defective bulldozer needed to be replaced using a ship’s crane. Before the bulldozer could be hoisted, someone had to attach it to the crane. A platform of small metal parts also had to be built to place the bulldozer on. Close cooperation between the crane operator and the bulldozer driver was essential here, especially since replacing a defective bulldozer creates an elevated safety risk for the bulldozer driver. It is safer for the bulldozer driver to remain in the cab, but this is impossible while replacing a bulldozer: it had to be attached to the crane, and the driver had to remain in the hold during hoisting. The driver then had to walk across the scrap metal, with all the associated risks, to leave the hold. The subdistrict court ruled that, in a situation where the work carries substantial risks like this, the client company must ensure a clear protocol and corresponding safety instructions are in place. Since the client company had taken no specific measures and given no instructions, it had failed to meet its duty of care under Section 7:658(1) BW. Nor was there any evidence of intent or deliberate recklessness on the employee’s part. The subdistrict court ruled that the client company is liable for the damage the employee suffered as a result of the workplace accident.
For the full ruling, click here (in Dutch).
Questions about the above?
Please contact one of Sørensen Advocaten’s employment lawyers. Call: +31 (0)10-2492444
