Sometimes it is inevitable that accidents happen in the workplace. The question is then: did the employer make a mistake and is there an obligation to compensate the employee for any damage suffered? The Gelderland court recently ruled on this issue. Read more here:

What were the facts?

In December 2021, an employee of Pluryn, an organisation providing disability, youth and mental health care, rushed to the aid of a colleague. Together with others, the employee restrains one of the residents of the residential group on the floor, in the resident's room, for some time. This does not end well: the employee bumps into a metal corner rail of a bed, leaving a long and deep cut under his right kneecap. The employee argues in court that Pluryn is liable for the damage due to breach of its duty of care as employer.

What does Dutch law say?

The court first of all refers to the legal framework: under Article 7:658 (1) of the Civil Code, an employer must take those measures that are reasonably necessary to prevent the employee from suffering damage in the performance of his work. It follows from established case law that, in principle, this legal provision implies a broad duty of care for the employer. It cannot easily be assumed that the employer has complied with it and is therefore not liable for damage suffered by the employee in the performance of his duties. The law requires a high level of safety of the work area, equipment, tools and clothing involved, as well as of the organisation of the work, as well as requires the employer to supervise, tailored to the circumstances of the case, the proper observance of the instructions he has given.

On the other hand, Article 7:658(1) is not an absolute guarantee for the protection of the employee against danger. The answer to the question of what measures the employer should take depends on the circumstances of the case, including:

• the nature of the work;
• the likelihood that an accident will occur
• the severity that the consequences of an accident may have, and
• the degree of objectionability of the safety measures to be taken.
  .

Moreover, the employer should take into account that employees do not always exercise the caution that is advisable to prevent accidents. The mere circumstance that a generally known risk of damage materialises, or the mere possibility of serious damage (at the workplace) does not create an obligation for the employer to take measures to prevent such damage; what obligation rests on the employer in a concrete case must be assessed taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case.

How did the court rule?

In this case, the employer is indeed liable for the employee's injury. The reason: Pluryn created an unsafe situation by placing the metal angle plates on the clients' beds. Pluryn should have milled these plates into the (wooden) bed so that staff or clients would not cut themselves on the sharp metal edges when bumping into them. Especially in a small space like the client's room, in which he regularly has to be restrained due to aggressive behaviour, it is reasonable to ask Pluryn to mill in the corner plates. The court also weighed in here that this was a simple required precaution and that the consequences could be serious, namely deep cuts. By failing to take this precaution, Pluryn as employer breached its duty of care. The employee is therefore entitled to compensation.

You can read this ruling here.

Do you also have questions about employer liability in case of accidents in the workplace? SPEE advocaten & mediation's employment law team is ready to answer them.