Serious personal injury due to a stack of pallets falling on an employee

Central Netherlands District Court 20 June 2017

This case involves a Manager Warehouse & Logistics working for a wholesaler of agricultural products and animal feed. In his job, the employee's responsibilities include loading and unloading trucks. On 18 June 2014, a industrial accident. The employee climbs onto a loading dock and, using a pump truck, simultaneously moves two pallets of bales of agricultural products to the edge of the dock. He then climbs off the platform and walks towards a forklift truck. At that moment, he hears creaking and the load of pallets falls over, with the worker catching the 1,000-kg bales on his lower body. His left lower leg and foot appear to be crushed.

The employee holds his employer liable. According to the employee, the pallets fell over due to one of the pallets breaking, while the employer argues that the pallets fell over because the employee moved two pallets on top of each other at the same time.

The subdistrict court ruled that the issue in both situations was whether the employer had fulfilled its duty of care for the employee's safety. If it accident is the result of one of the pallets breaking, then this already constitutes a breach of the duty of care. After all, the employer must ensure that the materials used are sound. During the hearing, the employer stated that pallets did break more often. This should have prompted the employer to check whether the pallets used were still sufficiently suitable. However, no such quality control took place.

Even if the pallets fell over because the employee moved two pallets on top of each other at the same time, the employer failed in its duty of care. The employer should have clearly instructed, even prohibited, its employee(s) not to transport pallets stacked. These instructions were not given. In addition, the employer should have repeated such instructions, or at least it should have ensured that these instructions were actually followed. In the event that an employee should be considered an expert, this does not detract from the employer's duty of care, in the sense that the instructions should be repeated to this employee as well. The employer had not complied with this either; in fact, the employer did not have a safety plan at all at the time.

The employer's defence that "even a child can figure out that this is dangerous" fails. This plea of own fault can only come into play if there is intent or conscious recklessness on the part of the employee. There was none of this. The subdistrict court therefore ruled that the employer was liable and awarded the employee EUR 15,000 as an advance on the damages to be awarded eventually.

Tip: The employee's own expertise or fault does not (easily) relieve the employer of its duty of care.