District Court Midden-Nederland, 13 November 2024, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2024:6380
On 13 November, the District Court Midden-Nederland ruled on employer liability during a company outing. The case concerned an assistant gardener (the employee) who was injured after his supervisor pushed him off a quay onto a lower jetty during a company outing.
Facts
To mark a 25th anniversary, the supervisor at a landscaping company (the employer) organised a company outing consisting of a scavenger hunt and drinks at an office space in a harbour. During the evening, at which a great deal of alcohol was served, the employee became involved in horseplay with two colleagues. Video footage shows the employer guiding the three unsteady men towards the water with both arms, before giving them a firm push from the quay wall in the direction of the water.
As a result, the men fell from the quay wall onto a lower jetty. The employee broke his ankle, fibula and metatarsal bones. He held the employer liable for the damage he suffered and argued that the employer had breached its duty of care under Section 7:658 of the Dutch Civil Code. The employer relied on the employee’s own contributory fault.
Ruling
Section 7:658 of the Dutch Civil Code provides that an employer is liable for damage suffered by an employee in the course of carrying out his work, unless the employer can show that it complied with its duty of care or that the damage results from intent or deliberate recklessness on the employee’s part. The burden of proof lies with the employer.
The court ruled that an accident during (recreational) activities organised by the employer, such as a company outing, can give rise to employer liability. The condition for this is that the activity can be regarded as part of the work the employee is required to perform. This is the case if there is a sufficiently close connection between the activity and the employee’s duties. The phrase “in the course of carrying out his work” is interpreted broadly in this context.
Although attending the company outing was not mandatory, the court held that the employees experienced it as a social obligation. Moreover, the outing had not yet ended at the time of the accident. Given his exemplary role, the employer should have exercised supervision, especially in light of the alcohol consumption and the hazardous harbour environment. The employer’s argument based on the employee’s own contributory fault was rejected.
Conclusion: company outing turns costly – employer held liable for employee’s injury
The court held the employer liable for the damage suffered by the employee. The company outing was regarded as an integral part of the employment relationship. This meant that the employer had a duty of care for the health and safety of its employees, even during this kind of activity.
In summary, this ruling shows that employer liability is established more readily than one might expect. Many clients ask us how best to organise company outings with as little liability risk as possible. Case law shows that the following factors reduce the connection with the employee’s work: an external location, taking place outside working hours, and limited supervision of alcohol consumption. Would you like to know how to organise a company outing with minimal liability risk, or have you dealt with an employee injury during working hours? Please feel free to contact one of our employment lawyers.
Click here for the full ruling (in Dutch).
