Workplace accidents in the Netherlands: employer liability

An employee injured at work in the Netherlands can hold the employer liable under article 7:658 of the Dutch Civil Code (BW). You need only prove that you suffered damage in the performance of your work; the employer must then prove that it complied with its duty of care, or that the damage was substantially caused by your own intent or conscious recklessness. If it cannot prove either, it is liable for the full loss.

That reversal of the burden of proof is the reason Dutch employees are in a stronger position than the phrase “you must prove negligence” suggests. There is no separate workers' compensation scheme in the Netherlands and no statutory tariff of benefits: your claim is a civil claim against the employer, usually handled by the employer's liability insurer. This article explains what qualifies as a workplace accident, exactly what each side has to prove, who else can be liable, how the accident must be reported, how to claim compensation from the liable party in principle, and how long you have to bring the claim. It covers the employment-law and liability side; the calculation of personal injury damages (letselschade) is a specialist field outside its scope.

What counts as a workplace accident?

A workplace accident is a sudden event during the performance of work that causes physical or psychological injury. The place where it happens matters less than the connection with the work: the employer's premises, a client's site, a construction site, a delivery round or a customer's home all qualify, provided you were carrying out your duties at the time. Under law as it is applied by the Dutch courts, the phrase “in the performance of work” in article 7:658 BW is read broadly.

Trapping a hand in a machine, falling from scaffolding, slipping on an unmarked wet floor, being struck by a reversing forklift or being assaulted by a customer are all workplace accidents. So is psychological injury caused by a single identifiable incident at work, such as a violent robbery.

Are occupational diseases treated differently from accidents?

Yes. An occupational accident is one identifiable event. An occupational disease (beroepsziekte) develops over time through exposure at work: hearing loss from sustained noise, respiratory disease from dust or solvents, repetitive strain injury, or burnout attributable to structural overload. Both fall under the same duty of care in article 7:658 BW, but the evidence is entirely different.

In a disease claim the difficulty is causation. You must establish that the complaints can be caused by the exposure, that you were exposed at work in sufficient measure, and that no other plausible cause dominates. Dutch case law helps here through the arbeidsrechtelijke omkeringsregel: where the employer breached a safety norm and the employee was exposed to a hazard capable of causing the condition, causation may be presumed unless it is implausible that the exposure caused the complaints. Where the medical picture is not sufficiently established, that presumption is not applied, and expert evidence becomes decisive.

Is your employer liable for commuting and work-related traffic?

Ordinary commuting between home and the workplace normally falls outside article 7:658 BW, because the employer has no control over that journey. That is not the end of the analysis. Where an employee takes part in road traffic in the course of the work, for example as a driver, a home care worker travelling between clients, or a cyclist running errands for the employer, the Hoge Raad has held under the good employership provision in article 7:611 BW that the employer must arrange adequate insurance against the risk of a traffic accident, or bear the consequences of failing to do so (ECLI:NL:HR:2008:BD3129, Maatzorg/Van der Graaf).

That obligation is limited. The Supreme Court has declined to extend it into a general duty to insure against every workplace risk, so it does not turn article 7:611 BW into a second liability regime. It is nonetheless the route by which many traffic-related workplace accidents are compensated when the employer itself was not at fault.

What does article 7:658 BW require of your employer?

The employer must take the measures reasonably necessary to prevent you suffering damage at work, and it is liable unless it proves it did so. Article 7:658(1) BW requires the employer to arrange the workplace, the equipment and the tools, and to give the instructions, that are reasonably necessary to prevent the employee suffering damage in the performance of the work. Article 7:658(2) BW then makes the employer liable for damage the employee suffers in the performance of the work, unless the employer proves that it complied with that duty, or that the damage is in significant measure the result of intent or conscious recklessness on the part of the employee.

Two features of that structure decide most cases. The standard is high but not absolute: it is not a guarantee of safety, and it is measured against what was reasonably required given the nature of the work, the recognisable risks and the state of technology and knowledge at the time. And the burden sits with the employer, which is unusual in Dutch civil litigation and is precisely why these claims succeed more often than employees expect.

What do you have to prove as an employee?

Your case has two elements. First, that you suffered damage. Second, that the damage arose in the performance of your work. You do not have to identify the safety measure that was missing, and you do not have to prove that your employer was careless. In practice this means the file should establish, with documents rather than recollection, that the incident happened, when and where it happened, that you were working at the time, and what injury followed. A medical record made shortly after the event is worth more than any later reconstruction.

Where the exact cause of the accident cannot be established at all, the claim can fail: the employee still has to show a sufficient link between the damage and the work. That is the main evidential risk, and it is another reason to report and document immediately.

What does the employer have to prove?

To escape liability the employer must show that it did what was reasonably required. That is a concrete exercise, not a statement of policy. The duty of care is assessed against the risk inventory and evaluation (risico-inventarisatie en -evaluatie, RI&E) required by the Working Conditions Act, the instructions actually given, the training actually provided, the equipment supplied and maintained, and the supervision exercised to make sure the rules were followed.

Dutch courts consistently hold that providing safety equipment is not enough if its use is not enforced, and that written instructions are not enough if the employer knew or should have known that they were routinely ignored. Employers are also expected to allow for the fact that employees become careless in work they perform every day; the duty of care extends to protecting against that ordinary inattention. Failures in documentation therefore cut both ways: if the RI&E is absent or out of date, the employer is left with very little to prove compliance with, which is why an incomplete file often decides a claim before the facts are argued.

Which defences does the employer have?

The employer has two escape routes and no others. The first is proof of compliance with the duty of care. The second is proof that the damage was in significant measure caused by the employee's intent or conscious recklessness. Conscious recklessness is a demanding standard: the employee must have been actually aware, immediately before the act, of the reckless character of their conduct. Ignoring a rule, taking a short cut, or being distracted does not meet it.

This matters because ordinary contributory negligence under article 6:101 BW does not reduce a claim under article 7:658 BW. Outside the narrow case of intent or conscious recklessness, an employee who was partly careless still recovers the full loss. Insurers regularly open negotiations on the opposite assumption, and it is worth knowing that employer negligence does not have to be established for the claim to succeed.

Who else can be held liable?

The obvious defendant is your own employer, but article 7:658(4) BW extends the same liability to anyone who has work performed by a person with whom they have no employment contract. Agency workers, secondees, payrolled staff and self-employed contractors integrated into the hirer's operations can therefore sue the company where the accident happened, not only the party that pays them. A temporary worker injured on a client's premises usually has a claim against both the agency and the hirer, who are each liable for the whole loss and can settle their positions between themselves afterwards.

Note that this protection is not limited to formal employees. The Hoge Raad has applied article 7:658(4) BW to self-employed workers performing work that fits within the hirer's ordinary business operations and who depend on the hirer for their safety. Someone who has been engaged as a contractor is therefore not automatically outside the regime, which is worth checking before assuming that no claim exists.

Where a third party caused the accident, for example another road user or the supplier of defective equipment, a separate claim in tort under article 6:162 BW may run alongside the claim against the employer. You cannot recover the same loss twice, but you can pursue whichever route is best supported by the evidence. Your employer, for its part, has a statutory right of recourse under article 6:107a BW to recover the net wage it continued to pay from the liable third party.

Does insurance pay regardless of fault?

No. The Netherlands has no compulsory workers' compensation insurance and no state accident fund that pays out regardless of fault. Most employers hold general business liability insurance (aansprakelijkheidsverzekering voor bedrijven) which responds to a valid claim under article 7:658 BW, but that cover is voluntary and its limits are contractual. If the employer is uninsured or underinsured, the liability remains and is enforced against the company itself.

Medical treatment in the meantime runs through your own health insurance under the Health Insurance Act, and wage during illness is governed by article 7:629 BW, which obliges the employer to continue paying at least seventy per cent of wages for up to 104 weeks, with many collective agreements providing more. Those payments do not settle the liability question: they are set off against the loss of income element of any claim against the liable party.

Who must report the accident, and what does the Labour Authority do?

Serious accidents must be reported by the employer directly to the Labour Authority; you should also report every accident to your employer in writing yourself. Under article 9(1) of the Working Conditions Act (Arbeidsomstandighedenwet), an employer must report immediately to the designated supervisory authority, the Nederlandse Arbeidsinspectie (Netherlands Labour Authority), any workplace accident resulting in death, permanent injury or admission to hospital, and must report on it to that authority as soon as possible if asked. Reporting is not discretionary and does not depend on whether the employer accepts that the accident was work-related. Failure to report is itself an offence and can be penalised.

The Labour Authority investigates reportable accidents and produces a report. It can impose administrative fines, order work to be stopped, and in serious cases the Public Prosecution Service can prosecute the company or its directors. For an injured employee that report is often the single most valuable piece of evidence in the civil claim, because it records the state of the workplace shortly after the accident and assesses compliance with safety obligations. You can ask for a copy, and where an accident has not been reported you can notify the Authority yourself.

Report the accident to your employer in writing the same day, however minor it appears. Under article 9(2) of the Working Conditions Act, the employer must keep a list of reported accidents and of accidents that led to more than three working days of absence, recording their nature and date; ask for a copy of that entry. Photograph the location and the equipment before anything is moved, take the names of witnesses, and see a doctor even if you feel able to continue. Injuries that seem trivial on the day are the ones that later become disputed.

How long do you have to hold the employer liable?

Five years from the moment you know of both the damage and the liable party, with an absolute limit of twenty years. The limitation period is set by article 3:310 BW. A claim for damages expires five years after the day following that on which the injured party became aware of both the damage and the person liable for it, and in any event twenty years after the event that caused the damage. For occupational diseases with a long latency the twenty-year long stop can be applied with restraint on grounds of reasonableness, but that is an exception argued case by case and is not something to rely on.

A limitation period can be interrupted by a written notice in which you unequivocally reserve your right to performance, after which a new period starts to run. Sending that notice costs nothing and is the single cheapest protective step available. Correspondence with an insurer does not automatically preserve the claim, and negotiations that drag on are a common way for a good claim to be lost.

How does a liability claim usually proceed?

A claim normally begins with a letter holding the employer liable, setting out the facts and asking it to notify its insurer. The insurer then investigates, often instructing an expert to visit the site and interview witnesses, and takes a position on liability.

Where liability is denied, the claim is brought before the kantonrechter (subdistrict court), which hears employment matters regardless of the amount in dispute, so you are entitled to conduct the case yourself, although in a liability dispute of any size that is rarely wise. Mediation can be useful where the working relationship still has to continue; our guide to mediation in employment disputes explains when it is worth trying.

Who pays the legal costs?

If the losing party is ordered to pay costs, note that a Dutch costs order is calculated on a standardised scale and covers only part of the actual legal fees. The more relevant point in liability claims is article 6:96 BW: once liability is established, your reasonable extrajudicial costs of establishing liability are themselves recoverable from the liable party. A separate route exists for the formal compensation claim where the dispute concerns sick pay rather than damages.

Where do liability claims go wrong?

Most claims that fail do so for reasons that had nothing to do with the merits. The accident was never reported in writing, so its occurrence is disputed years later. The site was cleared and the machine repaired before anyone photographed it. The employee accepted a quick payment described as a gesture of goodwill, signed a discharge, and later discovered that the injury was permanent. The five-year period ran out while negotiations continued. Or the employee, told by the insurer that they had been careless, assumed that this ended the matter, when contributory negligence is almost never a defence under article 7:658 BW.

Two further points are worth flagging. First, a settlement with a final discharge (finale kwijting) closes the file for good, including for consequences that emerge later, unless it expressly reserves that position. Second, an employer that responds to an accident by trying to end the employment relationship faces a separate problem: dismissal during illness is restricted, and an injured employee retains the ordinary protections under Dutch employment law, including the right to reintegration support. The liability claim and the employment position should be handled together, not in sequence.

What should you do after an accident at work?

Report the accident to your employer in writing and keep a copy. Get medical attention and make sure the cause is recorded in the medical file. Secure evidence before it disappears: photographs, the names of witnesses, the make and model of the equipment, the shift roster, the instructions you were given. Ask for the internal accident registration and, where the accident was reportable, for the Labour Authority's findings. Keep every receipt and a simple diary of absence, treatment and the things you cannot do.

Then take advice before you sign anything. Insurers are entitled to investigate and often make an early offer while the picture is still open; accepting it with a final discharge can be an expensive decision. The reasonable costs of an assessment of liability are recoverable under article 6:96 BW once liability is established. Employers, for their part, are best served by getting the RI&E, the instruction records and the maintenance log in order before an accident happens, since that documentation is what the defence will consist of. Our summary of the most common compliance mistakes sets out where those files usually fall short, and our guide to Dutch labour law covers the wider obligations.

In summary

• Under article 7:658 BW you only prove damage in the performance of your work; the employer must prove it met its duty of care.
• The employer’s only other defence is intent or conscious recklessness; ordinary carelessness on your part does not reduce the claim.
• Hirers of agency workers and of contractors working within their operations can be liable too (article 7:658(4) BW).
• Serious accidents must be reported directly to the Netherlands Labour Authority (article 9 Working Conditions Act); report every accident to your employer in writing.
• The claim expires five years after you know the damage and the liable party (article 3:310 BW); a written notice interrupts that period.

Unsure where you stand? Tell us about your situation. We will let you know your options within one working day.

How Law & More can help you with this is explained on our employment lawyer page.