Mail delivery man falls on driveway of house; employer liable on grounds of good employment practice

Interim judgement Utrecht District Court 16 June 2010

On 26 January 2005, a postal delivery driver was found to have a accident happened to her. She slipped on a slice of ice or frozen snow while delivering mail on foot on or near a residential driveway. The postal delivery driver suffered permanent injuries to her ankle and is not expected to be able to resume her work. The postal delivery driver claimed that the subdistrict court should rule that TNT is liable under section 7:658 and/or 7:611 of the Civil Code for the injury she sustained and the damage she continues to suffer as a result.

The subdistrict court ruled as follows. For the answer to the question whether TNT had fulfilled its duty of care for the health and safety of its employee (Section 7:658 of the Dutch Civil Code), it is important what the weather conditions were. What is certain is that the weather conditions were not extreme. It was slightly frosty, partly to heavily cloudy and there was light precipitation, in short, 'normal Dutch winter weather' in which it is common knowledge that it can be slippery locally. Given these everyday winter conditions, TNT did not need to provide separate footwear or irons to prevent slipping. The postal worker could be expected to be familiar with the danger of slipping. TNT was therefore entitled to assume that the postal delivery driver would (be able to) observe the degree of attention required - given the weather conditions - to prevent slipping. TNT is therefore not liable under Section 7:658 of the Dutch Civil Code.

Next, the question arises whether TNT is obliged to provide proper insurance based on good employment practices (Section 7:611 of the Dutch Civil Code). Mail delivery involves a lot of walking outside. In winter weather like this, (also) walking on the pavement entails a risk of falling. The accident that befell the delivery man is inherent to the nature and content of the work and the conditions under which it had to be performed. Personal injury, such as that of the postal delivery driver, is also far-reaching and often has lasting consequences. In these circumstances, TNT is under an obligation to take out adequate insurance for the benefit of its postal delivery staff in order to prevent the risk of damage such as that at issue being passed entirely onto its employee. Because TNT failed to comply with this obligation, it is liable for damages.

The extent of this liability is not determined by the damage the postal delivery driver suffered and will suffer as a result of the accident, but by the amount that would have been paid to her under a proper insurance policy. The Subdistrict Court referred the case to the roll-call hearing of 14 July 2010, where the postal delivery driver had to express an opinion on the amount that would have been paid to her if TNT had had proper and reasonably required insurance.

Tip: When an employee is injured in traffic, always check whether the employer has taken out proper insurance as well. Work injury is a profession in its own right!