Does a hirer have the same duty of care as an employer, and how far does that obligation extend? These questions were central to a ruling by The Hague District Court on 26 August 2025 concerning an accident at work resulting in serious eye injury. The court examined the scope of Section 7:658(4) of the Dutch Civil Code, the interpretation of the duty of care and the required causal link between the accident and the resulting injury. You can read here how this case unfolded and what it might mean for you.<\/p>\n
What happened?<\/strong><\/p>\n The case concerned a temporary worker employed through a temporary agency at a cucumber farm. Whilst harvesting, a leaf from a cucumber plant got into his eye. Shortly afterwards, he developed eye symptoms which progressed to a severe corneal ulcer and a fungal infection, ultimately causing him to lose his sight in one eye.<\/p>\n No safety goggles were available at the workplace, and the worker had not been instructed on how to use eye-washing facilities. He held the hirer liable, arguing that insufficient measures had been taken to prevent this risk. The hirer contested both the causal link between the incident and the permanent injury and the alleged breach of the duty of care.<\/p>\n What did the subdistrict court rule?<\/strong><\/p>\n The subdistrict court judge first held that, pursuant to Article 7:658(4) of the Dutch Civil Code, a hirer may, under certain circumstances, be subject to the same duty of care as an employer with regard to persons carrying out work under their authority. That duty of care entails organising the workplace and implementing safety measures in such a way that employees are protected as much as possible against occupational risks.<\/p>\n First of all, the subdistrict court assessed the causal link between the incident and the resulting eye injury. The medical records showed that a severe corneal ulcer and fungal infection had developed shortly after the accident. The fact that the infection may have been partly caused by a fungus naturally present in the body did not break the causal link. It was precisely because the eye had been damaged whilst carrying out the work that the infection was able to develop. The medical complication was therefore not unrelated to the accident at work, but was a consequence of it.<\/p>\n The subdistrict court then assessed whether the hirer had fulfilled its duty of care. A factor taken into account was that workers harvesting cucumbers more frequently suffer from eye complaints because they come into contact with the leaves of the plants. This constituted a foreseeable risk. The hirer should therefore have been expected to carry out an appropriate risk assessment, provide suitable personal protective equipment, such as safety goggles, issue clear safety instructions, monitor compliance with these instructions, and instruct employees on the use of eye-washing facilities.\nAs these measures had not been taken, the subdistrict court ruled that the hirer had breached its duty of care.<\/p>\n The defence of contributory negligence was also unsuccessful. According to the court, there was no evidence of intent or wilful recklessness on the part of the employee. He could not be blamed for failing to use the eye-wash bottles provided, as he had not been made aware of their presence. The subdistrict court therefore ruled that the hirer was liable for the occurrence and consequences of the accident at work and ordered the hirer and its insurer to compensate the employee for the full extent of his damages.<\/p>\n