From practice · Our own case · Workplace injury involving a self-employed worker
A self-employed worker may, in certain circumstances, hold a commissioning business responsible for a workplace accident, but not every company in the contractual chain is automatically liable. This distinction is central to a case handled by Leyla Akkanat. The District Court of The Hague held Palmax liable. The applications against HVI were dismissed. The result was therefore partly favourable, not a victory against every respondent.
What happened?
The client carried out excavation work as a self-employed contractor for the installation of a fibre-optic network. His hand became trapped between a compressor and a tow hitch. Palmax had engaged him; HVI was one level further up the contracting chain. Both businesses were pursued.
The court found insufficient grounds to conclude that HVI was responsible for this worker’s safety. Merely providing the compressor was not enough. Palmax did not appear, and the insufficiently disputed facts supported the claim against that company. Palmax was ordered to compensate the loss, to be assessed in separate damages proceedings, and to pay €3,512.27 in partial-dispute costs. Total personal injury loss was not yet established. Source: ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2025:10650. The decision itself states 15 April 2025; some publication metadata give a different date.
The actual working arrangements matter, not just the contract chain
A contractual diagram shows who engaged whom, but does not establish who gave day-to-day directions or could take safety measures. Applying Article 7:658(4) of the Dutch Civil Code requires examining the actual relationships. A self-employed worker’s dependence on another party for safety may play an important role.
Practical questions include: who instructed you, to whom did you report problems and who determined the method of working? Who supplied equipment and decided how it should be used? Merely being present on site does not necessarily have the same significance as exercising daily control over the work.
Why providing machinery does not decide everything
Different potential legal grounds may arise from an accident. A dispute about safe supervision is not the same as a dispute about a defect in machinery. Each legal basis needs appropriate supporting facts.
Separate what is established about the equipment from what is known about the organisation of the work. Preserve maintenance records where available, as well as the assignment, instructions and communications around the incident. A suspicion that a business was involved in the project does not replace that evidence.
Failure to appear does not establish the entire loss
A case study should also explain the respondent’s procedural position. Palmax did not defend these proceedings. We state that expressly. The decision should not be portrayed as a substantive debate in which every possible counterargument was rejected.
The reference to separate damages assessment also matters. It does not determine how much lost income, assistance or other loss qualifies for compensation. Procedural costs are a separate item, not the amount of personal compensation.
Which documents help after an accident?
The assignment and payments: keep the contract, invoices and messages about the work. They help establish for whom you worked and the roles of other parties.
Instructions and supervision: record who was on site and what you were actually told to do. Preserve existing work plans and safety instructions. Describe uncertainties in your recollection as uncertainties.
The accident and its consequences: collect incident reports, available photographs and witness details. Record treatment, absence from work and costs. Give your lawyer documents that may seem unfavourable too; they can affect the choice of legal basis.
Frequently asked questions
Does every self-employed worker have the same protection as an employee?
That does not follow from this decision. Whether the duty of care applies must be assessed against the working relationship and circumstances.
Are all contractors above my commissioning party liable?
No. This case illustrates why each business’s position must be considered separately.
Was the claim against HVI successful?
No. The applications against HVI were dismissed. The favourable ruling concerned Palmax.
Help with injuries during self-employed work
Arslan Advocaten can assess the working relationship and potential defendants. Dutch-language background is available on duties of care and liability, workplace accidents and the separate Pelican Rouge case involving supplied labour. You can contact us with a brief account and the documents available.
Source and scope: ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2025:10650, paragraphs 4.1–4.12 and the operative part. The full republication states 15 April 2025 in the heading and conclusion. Costs were reduced. Subsequent legal remedies and the final settlement of the loss have not been established. The construction-site illustration is symbolic, not a reconstruction.
