SCC certificate: no employer liability after employee falls down stairs

SCC certificate: no employer liability after employee falls down stairs

Supreme Court 21 May 2010

An employee, employed as a carpenter, suffered an accident while at work in which he sustained injuries. The employee was working at the premises of the Eindhovens Dagblad in Eindhoven, where system walls and ceilings needed to be moved. The work consisted of dismantling and assembling system walls with frames and doors. The employee tried to place a window at a height of about 2.10 metres above the floor. To reach it, he stood on the third or fourth step of a set of stairs. As he tried to push the window into a so-called clang with considerable force, he slipped off the step and bounced down along it. On the floor, he then slipped and fell. Thereupon, the employee felt severe pain in his back and leg. Since the accident incapacitated for his own work. Reintegration proved impossible and retraining did not have the desired result.

Employee summoned his employer to the subdistrict court and claimed a declaratory judgment that the employer had breached its duty of care under Section 7:658 of the Civil Code, and was therefore liable for the accident, and sought an order to pay damages. The employer contested the claim. The subdistrict court dismissed the claim. Both parties appealed from this judgment. The court of appeal ruled that, since it had been established that the employer was a VCA-certified company, it could, for the time being, be assumed in law that the small staircase made available to the employee, which he was using at the time of the accident, met the safety requirements to be set for such a staircase. The court considers that the employee has not succeeded in proving the contrary. The court also considers that the work in question could "in principle be performed safely and in accordance with the applicable working conditions regulations by using a small ladder". It considered "convincingly demonstrated that the employer provided a sufficiently safe working environment and did not breach its duty of care as employer". After all, the work was done at a low height and not much force had to be applied. The court speaks of an "unfortunate accident" for which the employer is not liable. The court of appeal upheld the subdistrict court's rejection of the employer's liability. When the employee appealed in cassation, the Supreme Court in its recent ruling upheld the court of appeal's ruling.

Tip: A thorough examination of whether the employer has met its health and safety care obligations for its employees is of great importance before arriving at the hold it accountable for a industrial accident is passed. And that is work for specialised lawyers.

en_GBEN