Group care worker assaulted by youths

Amsterdam Court of Appeal 15 January 2013

This ruling concerns an employee employed by 's-Heeren Loo in Amersfoort. This is a care institution whose activities include supporting people with a mental disability. The employee is a group leader at a division of 's-Heeren Loo that specifically focuses on young people with mild intellectual disabilities and behavioural problems. The group she supervised involved only boys aged between 12 and 18 with very serious behavioural problems.

In the evening of 4 September 2008, an incident took place. The group leader was on duty together with two other female colleagues. At one point, two youths behaved aggressively towards the group leader and one of her colleagues. This colleague received a headbutt from one youth and was strangled by the other youth. When the group leader tried to help her colleague, she received a strong push or punch from one of the boys against her chest and shoulder, causing her to fall against a wall. During another attempt to help her colleague, she also received several kicks to her leg.

As a result of this incident, the group leader suffered such serious personal injury on that this eventually made her completely unfit for work. After more than two years of intermittent illness, the employer terminated the employment contract in July 2011. The group leader then held her employer liable for the damages she suffered as a result of the incident.

The subdistrict court in Utrecht held that the healthcare institution was liable as the employer for the group leader's personal injury. The institution appealed this judgment to the Amsterdam Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal also held the healthcare institution liable for breach of its employer's duty of care for the health and safety of the group leader. According to the court, the institution took insufficient specific measures to prevent the violence incident. For instance, the group was known to be difficult, but was understaffed. In addition, the group did not accept authority from women. The fact that it was not technically possible to have a man in the group in addition to a woman is at the care institution's risk. The health care institution also failed to provide the necessary recurrent training in conflict and aggression management. Moreover, it made too much use of temporary workers, some of whom did not follow aggression and conflict management training, which meant they could not and should not intervene in case of violent incidents. The general measures taken, such as weekly team meetings, multidisciplinary consultations in the presence of a remedial educationalist, and the alarm system where help comes from staff, were judged insufficient by the court.

Tip: This ruling confirms employers' far-reaching duty of care for their staff.