Written by Ömür Arslan, lawyer at Arslan Advocaten. Registered in the areas-of-law register of the Netherlands Bar for tenancy law and social security law. Last updated: 31 August 2026.
When is someone liable for your damage?
Someone is liable when the law designates their conduct or their position as grounds for bearing your damage — usually because they acted unlawfully, because they failed to honour an agreement, or because they are the possessor of an object, an animal or a business to which the law attaches the risk. Liability is therefore not a question of who is most in the wrong, but of whether there is a legal basis for passing the bill on to someone else.
That distinction is the biggest misunderstanding in practice. People come to us with a story in which the other party was clearly at fault and expect that to settle the matter. Conversely, people come to us who are certain that "nobody could help it", and who do not know that in a series of cases the law imposes liability without anyone being to blame.
Every claim for damages rests on one of three foundations:
| Legal basis | When | Key article |
|---|---|---|
| Unlawful act (tort) | there is no contract, or the contract is not the source of the problem | article 6:162 of the Civil Code |
| Breach of contract | there is an agreement and it has not been (properly) performed | article 6:74 of the Civil Code |
| Strict liability | the law places the damage on a particular person, regardless of fault | articles 6:169 to 6:185 of the Civil Code |
In addition, there are special regimes tailored to a single situation: the employer’s duty of care, the protection of cyclists and pedestrians in traffic, and product liability. As a rule these take precedence over the general rule, because they deliberately ease the victim’s evidential position.
What is an unlawful act, and which five requirements apply?
For a successful claim based on an unlawful act, five requirements must be met: there is unlawful conduct, which can be attributed to the wrongdoer, there is damage, there is a causal link between the conduct and that damage, and the norm that was breached serves to protect against damage such as the damage you suffered. If one is missing, the claim fails — however blameworthy the conduct may otherwise have been.
These requirements follow from article 6:162 of the Civil Code and the related article 6:163. The statutory text reads:
Paragraph 1: "A person who commits an unlawful act against another which can be attributed to him is obliged to compensate the damage that the other suffers as a result." Paragraph 2: "The following are regarded as unlawful acts: an infringement of a right, and an act or omission in breach of a statutory duty or of what is appropriate in social interaction according to unwritten law, all this subject to the presence of a ground of justification." Paragraph 3: "An unlawful act can be attributed to the wrongdoer if it is due to his fault or to a cause for which he is accountable by law or according to generally accepted views."
Source: wetten.overheid.nl, Civil Code Book 6, article 162 (unofficial translation).
| Requirement | What it means | What the dispute is about |
|---|---|---|
| Unlawfulness | infringement of a right, breach of a statutory duty, or breach of the unwritten standard of due care | whether the conduct crossed the line of what is socially acceptable |
| Attributability | fault, or a cause for which the wrongdoer is accountable by law or according to generally accepted views | rarely; a person who acts carelessly is, as a rule, also acting culpably |
| Damage | financial loss and, where the law allows, other harm | the extent, not the existence |
| Causal link | without the conduct the damage would not have occurred, and the damage can be attributed (article 6:98 of the Civil Code) | often the hardest-fought point in injury cases |
| Relativity | the norm that was breached serves to protect against this damage, suffered by this person | especially where government regulations were breached |
The relativity requirement of article 6:163 of the Civil Code is the one most often overlooked: a norm does not protect everyone against everything. A regulation intended to prevent fire hazards in principle provides no basis for someone who, through that same failure, suffers financial loss that has nothing to do with fire. In injury cases this is rarely an obstacle — safety standards protect precisely against injury — but in cases against public authorities and regulators, claims regularly founder on this point.
Paragraph 2 ends with "subject to the presence of a ground of justification". Self-defence, force majeure or the consent of the injured party can stand in the way of unlawfulness; anyone who relies on such a ground must, however, substantiate it.
When is conduct unlawful? The standard of due care and the Kelderluik criteria
Conduct is unlawful when it conflicts with what is appropriate in social interaction according to unwritten law, and in dangerous situations whether that is the case is assessed using the Kelderluik criteria: the likelihood that someone will be inattentive, the likelihood of an accident, the seriousness of the consequences and how burdensome safety measures would be. So the question is not whether something went wrong, but whether more precaution could have been expected.
The Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal summarised the norm as follows: "Creating a hazard concerns bringing about and/or allowing to continue a danger to persons or property. (…) More particularly, significance attaches in this respect to the so-called Kelderluik criteria: the likelihood of damage, the nature of the conduct, the nature and seriousness of the potential damage and how burdensome and customary it is to take precautionary measures." The mere possibility of damage does not in itself make conduct unlawful (ECLI:NL:GHARL:2018:9104). The Overijssel District Court worked out the same criteria in four questions: the probability that the required attentiveness will not be observed, the likelihood that accidents will result, the seriousness of the consequences and how burdensome the safety measures to be taken are (ECLI:NL:RBOVE:2023:2625).
Why this matters so much in practice. The fourth factor — how burdensome was it to remove the danger — is the strongest argument a victim has in negotiations. A danger that could have been removed with a tape, a sign, a lamp or an hour’s work is hard to defend. That is why we always ask clients: what should have happened to prevent this, and how much effort would that have taken?
The same criteria apply to the question whether a building or road is defective within the meaning of article 6:174 of the Civil Code (ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2025:6213). More may be expected of professional parties in this respect than of a private individual (ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2012:BX3010).
What is the difference between fault-based liability and strict liability?
With fault-based liability you must show that the other party did something wrong; with strict liability the law places the damage on a particular person because of their position, even if they personally are not to blame. That difference determines how heavy your burden of proof is and what the discussion with the insurer will be about.
| Fault-based liability | Strict liability | |
|---|---|---|
| Legal basis | conduct that is not acceptable | a position: possessor, parent, employer, producer |
| Blame required | yes, essentially | no |
| What you must assert | what the other party did or failed to do, and why that was careless | that the statutory position exists and that the risk has materialised |
| Where the discussion goes | the norm and the blame | contributory negligence, causation and the extent of the damage |
| Typical example | running a red light, prescribing an unsafe working method | your dog bites, your roof tile blows onto a car |
Strict liability is a deliberate choice by the legislature: whoever benefits from an object, an animal or a business also bears the risk, and can insure against it. With animals, it concerns "the danger inherent in the animal’s own energy and the unpredictable element contained in it"; the possessor "is deemed, through possession, to have implicitly accepted the risk of damage" (ECLI:NL:PHR:2015:2307). The distinction also has an effect at the end of the case: there is generally more reason to set off benefits against the damage in the case of strict liability than in the case of liability based on fault (ECLI:NL:PHR:2022:1132).
By way of illustration. Someone walks past a garden gate and is bitten by a dog that breaks loose. The owner reacts indignantly: the animal has never done anything before, he kept it properly on a lead, he is not to blame. For the question of liability, that is not decisive. With an animal, the law places the risk on the possessor, precisely because of the unpredictable element in the animal’s own energy; no blame needs to be proven. If it had not been an animal but, say, an inattentive cyclist, things would be different: then it would have to be substantiated what he did or failed to do and why that was careless. The same damage, a very different question of proof. This is an example situation illustrating the rule, not a case handled by our firm.
Practical consequence: if strict liability is in the picture, that is almost always the legal basis to start with — quicker to substantiate, and it immediately puts the other party on the defensive. You keep the unlawful act alongside it as a second line.
For which forms of strict liability can you hold someone liable?
The law has a closed set of strict liabilities, the most important of which concern defective buildings and roads, defective movable objects, animals, defective products, children, employees and contracted businesses. They are grouped together in Section 6.3.2 of the Civil Code and have one thing in common: you do not have to prove that someone did something wrong.
| Article | For what | Who is liable | Core of the provision |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6:169 Civil Code | damage caused by a child | the person exercising parental authority or guardianship | up to age 14 fully; from 14 to 16 "unless he cannot be blamed for not having prevented the child’s conduct" |
| 6:170 Civil Code | fault of a subordinate | the person in whose service the subordinate performs his duties | requires that the likelihood of the fault was increased by the assignment and that there was control over the conduct in which the fault lay |
| 6:171 Civil Code | fault of a non-subordinate | the principal | only if the work is carried out in the course of the principal’s business |
| 6:173 Civil Code | defective movable object | the possessor | the object does not meet the standards that may be expected of it and thereby poses a particular danger; does not apply to animals, ships and aircraft |
| 6:174 Civil Code | defective building or structure | the possessor; for public roads and hydraulic works, the public body responsible for keeping them in good condition | building or structure (opstal) = buildings and works permanently attached to the land; whoever is entered in the public registers as owner is presumed to be the possessor |
| 6:179 Civil Code | damage caused by an animal | the possessor of the animal | "unless liability (…) would have been absent if he had had the animal’s conduct (…) under his control" |
| 6:185 Civil Code | defective product | the producer | with a closed list of defences, including the development risk defence |
Source: wetten.overheid.nl, Civil Code Book 6, articles 169 to 185.
Defective buildings and structures (6:174 Civil Code) is the article behind the loose paving slab, the broken handrail and the defective piece of play equipment. For public roads, paragraph 2 designates the public body that must ensure the road is in good condition — in practice the municipality, the province or Rijkswaterstaat (ECLI:NL:RBROT:2020:7833). Paragraph 6 also includes the road body and road furniture, so that verges, signs and lighting fall under it as well. Important: the fact that a building or structure complies with the applicable safety regulations "does not preclude the finding that the building or structure (nevertheless) does not meet the said standards and is therefore defective within the meaning of article 6:174(1) of the Civil Code" (ECLI:NL:GHARL:2021:4261).
Animals (6:179 Civil Code). The possessor of a dog is in principle liable for a bite, even if the animal has never done anything before. The article does not apply where the animal acts as an instrument of the person leading it: the case then runs through article 6:162 of the Civil Code (ECLI:NL:RBALK:2008:BO1353, ECLI:NL:GHARN:2001:AD4954).
Subordinates (6:170 Civil Code) is the reason why, when an employee makes a mistake, you generally hold the company liable and not the employee personally.
Products (6:185 Civil Code) has its own time limits: under article 6:191(1) of the Civil Code, the claim against the producer becomes time-barred three years after the day following the day on which you became aware, or should have become aware, of the damage, the defect and the identity of the producer, and lapses in any event ten years after the producer put the product into circulation (paragraph 2).
Breach of contract or unlawful act: which legal basis do you choose?
Breach of contract is the failure to perform an obligation under an agreement, an unlawful act is the breach of a norm that applies to everyone — and the choice between the two determines whether you must first send a notice of default, what you must prove and which damage qualifies for compensation. Where there is a contract, both routes are often open and the choice is a tactical one.
Article 6:74(1) of the Civil Code: "Every failure in the performance of an obligation obliges the debtor to compensate the damage that the creditor suffers as a result, unless the failure cannot be attributed to the debtor."
| Breach of contract (6:74 Civil Code) | Unlawful act (6:162 Civil Code) | |
|---|---|---|
| Requires an agreement | yes | no |
| What you must assert | what was agreed, and that it was not performed | which norm was breached and why that was careless |
| Attribution | is presumed; the debtor must invoke force majeure (article 6:75 of the Civil Code) | you must assert attribution, although it often follows from the conduct itself |
| Notice of default | required in principle as long as performance is not permanently impossible (article 6:82 of the Civil Code) | not required |
| Exclusion clause in the terms and conditions | often plays a role | generally has effect, but is further removed from the claim |
Why it matters. In the case of breach of contract, paragraph 1 of article 6:74 of the Civil Code applies only subject to the rules on default, insofar as performance is not already permanently impossible. Under article 6:82(1) of the Civil Code, default occurs when the debtor is given notice of default by a written reminder "setting him a reasonable period for performance", and performance does not follow within that period. Anyone who skips this step can lose a claim that is strong in itself on a formal error; with an unlawful act, this does not play a role.
At the same time, your evidential position with breach of contract is often more favourable: you do not have to prove blame, and it is up to the debtor to show that the failure cannot be attributed to him (article 6:75 of the Civil Code). On the other hand, the contractual route has to get past any exclusion clauses.
In personal injury cases the legal basis is usually not a matter of choice: there is no contract with the driver who hit you. With a workplace accident and with medical errors it is different — there is both a contractual relationship and a statutory duty of care, and both lines are usually argued side by side.
Causal link: when is your damage a consequence of the event?
The causal link involves two steps: first the question whether the damage would not have occurred without the event — the condicio sine qua non link — and then the question whether the damage can reasonably be attributed to the liable party, having regard to the nature of the liability and of the damage. That second step is set out in article 6:98 of the Civil Code and is often the real battleground in personal injury cases.
Article 6:98 of the Civil Code reads in full: "Only damage that is connected with the event on which the debtor’s liability is based in such a way that it can be attributed to him as a consequence of that event, also having regard to the nature of the liability and of the damage, qualifies for compensation."
Source: wetten.overheid.nl, Civil Code Book 6, article 98 (unofficial translation).
Step 1 — condicio sine qua non. Imagine the event had not happened: would the damage have occurred anyway? If so, the link is missing and that is the end of it. This is a factual question, and it is the question on which insurers build their defence in whiplash and brain injury cases.
Step 2 — reasonable attribution. Even if the factual link exists, not all damage has to be compensated. Case law has developed a number of considerations: the more likely and foreseeable the consequence is according to common experience, the sooner attribution is appropriate; the more remote the consequence is from the conduct, the less justified attribution is; and the nature of the liability and of the damage referred to in article 6:98 of the Civil Code carry independent weight (ECLI:NL:PHR:2019:247, ECLI:NL:PHR:2018:998). This doctrine replaced the old adequacy doctrine, in which foreseeability was the only criterion (ECLI:NL:PHR:2022:246).
What this means for you. In personal injury and death cases, attribution is generally broad: both the nature of the liability — breach of a safety standard — and the nature of the damage argue in favour of attribution. That is why even unexpectedly serious consequences are usually borne by the liable party, and a particular vulnerability is in principle not held against the victim. The defence that you already had complaints therefore does not automatically succeed; however, a course of events that would also have occurred without the accident can limit the period of damage.
Contributory negligence: what if you also played a part?
If you yourself played a part in causing the damage, the compensation is in principle apportioned according to the degree to which each party’s circumstances contributed to the damage — but the fairness correction can change that apportionment or even undo it completely. Contributory negligence therefore does not mean that you are left empty-handed.
Article 6:101(1) of the Civil Code provides that the obligation to compensate is reduced by apportioning the damage "in proportion to the degree to which the circumstances attributable to each of them have contributed to the damage, on the understanding that a different apportionment takes place, or the obligation to compensate lapses entirely or remains intact, if fairness so requires in view of the differing seriousness of the faults committed or other circumstances of the case."
Source: wetten.overheid.nl, Civil Code Book 6, article 101 (unofficial translation).
The assessment takes place in two rounds:
| Round | What happens | What it is about |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Causal apportionment | the damage is apportioned according to the degree to which each party’s circumstances contributed | factual contribution, not morality |
| 2. Fairness correction | that outcome is adjusted if fairness so requires | seriousness of the faults, nature of the liability, seriousness of the injury |
The correction takes into account not only the differing seriousness of the faults, but also "the fact that one party can be blamed, while the contribution of the other is based on attribution as ‘risk’" (ECLI:NL:PHR:2025:1132). The fairness correction can, where necessary, be applied by the court of its own motion (ECLI:NL:PHR:2013:CA3751).
By way of illustration. A cyclist is hit by a car that fails to give way. The cyclist had no lights on. The insurer immediately points this out and proposes that a substantial part of the damage be borne by the cyclist. Legally, the assessment takes place in two rounds. First, it is examined to what extent each party’s circumstances actually contributed to the damage. Then follows the fairness correction, which takes into account, among other things, how the seriousness of the faults committed compares and that one contribution is based on blame and the other on risk. Cyclists and pedestrians hit by a motor vehicle also enjoy special protection. An insurer’s percentage is therefore a position, not a given. This is an example situation illustrating the rule, not a case handled by our firm.
In practice, insurers use the percentage of contributory negligence as a negotiating tool: mentioned early, set high, rarely substantiated. A percentage is not an established fact but a position, and it can be challenged. In a recent case, after weighing the conduct on both sides, the court arrived at an apportionment in which 70% of the damage was attributed to the party held liable (ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2026:5095).
Note one knock-on effect: if the obligation to compensate is reduced, this in principle carries through to the same extent to the compensation of your extrajudicial costs (ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2026:381). In traffic, special protection also applies: cyclists and pedestrians hit by a motor vehicle enjoy far-reaching protection against a defence of contributory negligence, and for children under fourteen it is even stronger. So never accept such a defence without having it examined.
Which damage is compensated?
Compensation is paid for financial loss — losses suffered and profits lost — and in addition for harm other than financial loss, but the latter only insofar as the law grants a right to it. That is the main rule of article 6:95(1) of the Civil Code, and it explains why compensation for pain and suffering is not an automatic consequence of every unlawful act.
Article 6:96(1) of the Civil Code: "Financial loss comprises both losses suffered and profits lost." Paragraph 2 expressly also includes: (a) reasonable costs of preventing or limiting damage, (b) reasonable costs of assessing damage and liability, and (c) reasonable costs of obtaining payment out of court. Paragraph 3 provides that b and c do not apply insofar as the rules on legal costs of article 241 of the Code of Civil Procedure apply.
Source: wetten.overheid.nl, Civil Code Book 6, articles 95 and 96 (unofficial translation).
| Type of damage | Examples | Legal basis |
|---|---|---|
| Losses suffered | medical costs, insurance excess, travel costs, damaged property, domestic help, home adaptations | article 6:96(1) of the Civil Code |
| Profits lost | lost income, loss of earning capacity now and in the future, lost turnover | article 6:96(1) of the Civil Code |
| Costs of limiting damage | measures to prevent things getting worse | article 6:96(2)(a) of the Civil Code |
| Costs of assessment | medical adviser, occupational expert, actuary, expert reports | article 6:96(2)(b) of the Civil Code |
| Extrajudicial costs | costs of legal assistance out of court | article 6:96(2)(c) of the Civil Code |
| Other harm (compensation for pain and suffering) | pain, grief, loss of enjoyment of life | articles 6:95 and 6:106 of the Civil Code |
Compensation for pain and suffering is awarded to anyone who has suffered physical injury, whose honour or reputation has been harmed or who has otherwise been harmed in their person; and also where there was an intention to cause harm and where the memory of a deceased person has been violated (article 6:106 of the Civil Code). The amount is determined on the basis of fairness — how that works in practice is explained on our page on compensation for pain and suffering.
What is often forgotten: DIY jobs you can no longer do yourself, delay in studies, loss of pension accrual, the hours family members spend on care, and aids that will only be needed years from now. What has not been recorded is, as a rule, not compensated — keep a damage file from day one. We describe the full claims settlement process on our page on personal injury.
How do you hold someone liable? What should the letter contain?
You hold someone liable with a written letter in which you describe the event and how it happened, state the legal basis of the liability, announce your damage, set a deadline for a response and expressly reserve your right to performance — the latter also interrupts the limitation period. A letter of liability is not subject to any formal requirements, but its content determines what the rest of the process will be about.
| Element | Why |
|---|---|
| Your details and those of the other party | to record who is holding whom liable |
| Date, place and circumstances | the set of facts on which everything rests; write factually, not indignantly |
| The legal basis | unlawful act, breach of contract or the specific strict liability article — cite the article |
| Why the other party is liable | which norm was breached, or which statutory position they hold |
| Your damage | what you have lost so far, and that the damage is not yet fully known |
| Reservation of all rights | expressly, also for damage not yet known |
| Interruption of the limitation period | an unequivocal reservation of your right to performance |
| Response deadline | a reasonable period, usually a few weeks |
| Attachments | police report, claim form, photos, medical records, receipts |
| Method of sending | by registered post or by e-mail with read receipt; keep the proof |
Interrupting the limitation period is the letter’s most important function. Article 3:317(1) of the Civil Code: the limitation period is interrupted "by a written reminder or by a written notice in which the creditor unequivocally reserves his right to performance". So there are two requirements: in writing and unequivocal. An e-mail in which you write that you "will get back to it" does not interrupt the limitation period. State explicitly that you reserve your right to performance of your claim for damages.
If it concerns breach of contract, the letter must in principle also set a reasonable period for performance (article 6:82(1) of the Civil Code): a letter of liability without a deadline does not put the other party in default. Send the letter to the liable party itself, which will bring in its insurer. In a traffic accident involving a motor vehicle, article 6(1) of the Motor Insurance Liability Act (WAM) gives you a direct right of action against the insurer, so you can approach the insurer directly.
What you should not do: embellish what happened, admit fault you do not bear, or sign a claim form under time pressure without having read the text. What you write down in the first weeks will come back in every later discussion.
Who has to prove what?
The main rule is that a party relying on the legal consequences of facts it has asserted must also prove those facts — so in principle you prove the unlawful conduct, the damage and the causal link — but there are important exceptions to that rule that considerably ease your position. In practice, who bears which burden determines the outcome more often than who is right on the merits.
Article 150 of the Code of Civil Procedure: "The party relying on the legal consequences of facts or rights it has asserted bears the burden of proving those facts or rights, unless a different allocation of the burden of proof follows from a special rule or from the requirements of reasonableness and fairness."
Source: wetten.overheid.nl, Code of Civil Procedure, article 150 (unofficial translation).
| Exception | What shifts | Legal basis |
|---|---|---|
| Strict liability | you do not have to prove blame, only the position and that the risk materialised | articles 6:169 to 6:185 of the Civil Code |
| Breach of contract | attribution is presumed; the debtor must prove force majeure | article 6:75 of the Civil Code |
| Employer’s duty of care | the employer must show that it has fulfilled its duty of care | article 7:658(2) of the Civil Code |
| Road traffic liability | the owner or keeper of the motor vehicle must make force majeure plausible | article 185 of the Road Traffic Act 1994 (WVW 1994) |
| Product | the producer must rely on one of the statutory defences | article 6:185(1) of the Civil Code |
| Reversal rule | under certain conditions, the causal link is presumed | judge-made law |
| Reasonableness and fairness | the court can allocate the burden differently | article 150 of the Code of Civil Procedure, final part |
The reversal rule (omkeringsregel) is often misunderstood: it does not reverse the burden of proof. It concerns "a special rule derived from reasonableness and fairness, according to which certain facts specified therein, established or made plausible, give rise to a presumption of a condicio sine qua non link that can be rebutted by counter-evidence" (ECLI:NL:PHR:2012:BX7264). It is therefore a presumption against which counter-evidence is possible. The rule comes into play when a norm has been breached that is meant to prevent a specific danger and precisely that danger materialises — typically with safety regulations.
In practice: always first check whether there is a special regime that eases your evidential position, before you build a case on the general unlawful act. A workplace accident is built on the employer’s duty of care, a collision as a cyclist on article 185 of the Road Traffic Act 1994, a dog bite on article 6:179 of the Civil Code. In addition, preserve evidence from day one: evidence that was there in week one and no longer exists in month six is the most common reason why a claim that is justified in itself fails.
How much time do you have? Limitation of a claim for damages
A claim for damages becomes time-barred in principle five years after the day following the day on which you became aware of both the damage and the liable person, and in any event twenty years after the event — but for damage resulting from injury or death that absolute period of twenty years expressly does not apply. That difference is of decisive importance in personal injury cases.
Article 3:310(1) of the Civil Code sets out the main rule: five years from the start of the day following the day on which the injured party became aware of both the damage and the person liable for it, "and in any event after the lapse of twenty years from the event that caused the damage". Paragraph 5 departs from this: for "damage resulting from injury or death" the claim becomes time-barred "only" after the lapse of those five years from awareness — so the twenty-year period does not apply there. If the injured party was a minor on the day the damage and the liable party became known, the five years only start on the day after they reach the age of majority.
Source: wetten.overheid.nl, Civil Code Book 3, article 310 (unofficial translation).
| Situation | Period |
|---|---|
| Ordinary claim for damages | five years after awareness, and in any event twenty years after the event (paragraph 1) |
| Damage from injury or death | only five years after awareness; no absolute period of twenty years (paragraph 5) |
| Victim was a minor | the five years only start on the day after reaching the age of majority (paragraph 5) |
| Damage caused by a criminal offence | the claim against the perpetrator does not become time-barred as long as the right to prosecute has not lapsed through limitation or through the perpetrator’s death (paragraph 4) |
| Directly against the motor insurer (WAM) | three years from the event from which the damage arose (article 10(1) of the Motor Insurance Liability Act (WAM)) |
| Against the producer of a defective product | three years after awareness, and extinction ten years after the product was put into circulation (article 6:191 of the Civil Code) |
Why paragraph 5 is so important. With injury that only manifests itself after decades — think of exposure to hazardous substances — an absolute period of twenty years would make the claim time-barred before the victim knew he was ill. For damage from injury or death, the legislature therefore abolished that limit. For damage other than injury, the twenty-year period applies in full, regardless of what you knew.
Watch out for the WAM period. The direct claim against the motor insurer becomes time-barred after only three years, counted from the event itself — so without any awareness requirement. Article 10(4) of the WAM does provide that acts interrupting the limitation period against the insured also interrupt it against the insurer, and vice versa. So always interrupt against both. If you are unsure whether your case is still in time, have that assessed before you do anything else: a time-barred claim cannot be saved.
What does liability insurance do, and what if there is no insurance?
In practice, the other party’s liability insurer is your actual opponent: it assesses liability, negotiates and pays — and for damage resulting from death or injury you can, under certain conditions, demand payment directly to yourself. Who is insured and for what therefore largely determines the course of your case.
| Insurance | Covers in principle | What to watch out for |
|---|---|---|
| Personal liability insurance (AVP) | damage that a private individual, their household members or pets cause to others | intent is generally excluded; motor vehicle damage runs through the WAM |
| Motor insurance (WAM) | damage caused with a motor vehicle | compulsory; you have a direct right of action against the insurer (article 6(1) of the WAM) |
| Business liability insurance (AVB) | damage caused in the course of the business, including employer’s liability | scope of cover and exclusions vary widely from policy to policy |
| Professional liability insurance | financial loss caused by a professional error by, for example, an adviser | often claims made: the moment of notification counts |
| Medical liability insurance | healthcare providers and hospitals | hospitals can be held centrally liable |
Direct action in injury cases. Article 7:954(1) of the Civil Code gives you an important instrument: once the materialisation of the risk has been reported to the insurer, you as the injured party can demand that the amount the insured is entitled to claim in respect of your damage "resulting from death or injury" be paid directly to you. Paragraph 4 also provides that the insured may not dispose of that claim to your detriment and that, to that extent, it cannot be attached by others. This protects you against an insured person who pockets the payment or goes bankrupt.
Source: wetten.overheid.nl, Civil Code Book 7, article 954.
If there is no insurance — a private individual without personal liability insurance, an exclusion that covers precisely this damage, or an intentional act — these are the routes:
- Hold the liable person personally to account. Legally nothing changes; the only question is whether there is anything to recover. An asset search beforehand prevents you from litigating against an empty shell.
- Look for a second liable party. There is often more than one party: the employer alongside the colleague (article 6:170 of the Civil Code), the principal alongside the contracted company (article 6:171 of the Civil Code), the road authority alongside the person who caused the accident. If several parties are liable for the same damage, they are in principle jointly and severally liable: you can recover the whole amount from one of them.
- A fund. The Waarborgfonds Motorverkeer (Motor Traffic Guarantee Fund) for an uninsured or unidentified motor vehicle; the Schadefonds Geweldsmisdrijven (Violent Crimes Compensation Fund) for an intentional violent crime resulting in serious injury, even if the perpetrator is unknown or has no means. Both provide a contribution, not full compensation.
- Your own insurance policies, or joining the criminal proceedings as an injured party, in which case the court can impose a compensation order and the state advances payment under certain conditions.
An insurer that refuses is not the end of the road. A rejection is the position of a party with its own interest, not a court ruling. Always ask for a written, reasoned rejection: it shows where the case gets stuck on the merits. If it gets stuck on one clearly defined point, in personal injury cases a partial dispute procedure (deelgeschilprocedure) can let the court rule on that one point without litigating the entire case.
Are you personally liable as a director or partner?
A director of a private limited company (bv) is in principle not personally liable for the company’s debts, but that changes when he can personally be seriously blamed or when, in bankruptcy, it turns out that the board has manifestly failed to perform its duties properly — with a general partnership (vof) it is different, because there every partner is jointly and severally liable. The legal form therefore determines where the risk lies.
| Situation | Who bears the risk | Legal basis |
|---|---|---|
| Sole proprietorship | the entrepreneur personally, with his private assets | no separate assets |
| General partnership (vof) | each partner jointly and severally, for the obligations of the partnership | article 18 of the Commercial Code (Wetboek van Koophandel) |
| Bv or nv — normal business operations | the company; the director in principle not | legal personality |
| Bv or nv — improper management, internal | the director towards the company, where he can be seriously blamed | article 2:9 of the Civil Code |
| Bv or nv — bankruptcy | each director jointly and severally towards the bankrupt estate for the deficit | article 2:248 of the Civil Code |
| Director who acts unlawfully himself | the director personally | article 6:162 of the Civil Code |
The general partnership (vof). Article 18 of the Commercial Code is short and harsh: "In general partnerships, each of the partners is jointly and severally liable for the obligations of the partnership." A creditor can therefore recover the full amount from one partner, even if that partner internally bears only part of it.
Internally. Article 2:9 of the Civil Code obliges every director to perform his duties properly towards the legal entity; paragraph 2 makes him liable for the whole in respect of improper management, "unless, also in view of the duties assigned to others, he cannot be seriously blamed and he has not been negligent in taking measures to avert the consequences of improper management".
In bankruptcy. Article 2:248(1) of the Civil Code makes each director jointly and severally liable towards the bankrupt estate for the deficit "if the board has manifestly performed its duties improperly and it is plausible that this is an important cause of the bankruptcy". Paragraph 2 contains a harsh rule of evidence: if the board has not complied with the duty to keep proper accounts (article 2:10 of the Civil Code) or with the duty to publish the annual accounts (article 2:394 of the Civil Code), improper performance of duties is established and it is presumed to be an important cause of the bankruptcy. Paragraph 3 gives the individual director an opportunity to exonerate himself, and paragraph 4 gives the court the power to reduce the amount.
Source: wetten.overheid.nl, Civil Code Book 2, articles 9 and 248 (unofficial translation).
If a director is held liable not for the performance of his duties but on the basis of a separate standard of care, the ordinary rules of the unlawful act apply: "In particular, it is then not required that the director can be seriously blamed for his conduct" (ECLI:NL:RBOVE:2020:2152, referring to the Spaanse Villa judgment). The higher threshold therefore does not always apply. Have the legal basis assessed early: the choice between article 2:9, article 2:248 and article 6:162 of the Civil Code determines what has to be proven and by whom.
Which situation does your case fall under? Further reading
The rules on this page apply to every liability question, but for each situation there is a special regime that makes your position stronger than the general unlawful act. So always look up the special regime first.
| Your situation | What is special about it | Read more |
|---|---|---|
| Injury after an accident | the full claims settlement process, from notification to settlement agreement | personal injury |
| Compensation for the suffering itself | determined on the basis of fairness, calibrated against amounts awarded in earlier cases | compensation for pain and suffering |
| Accident at work | the employer must in principle show that it has fulfilled its duty of care | workplace accident |
| Error in medical care | the standard of the reasonably acting and reasonably competent care provider, plus central liability of the hospital | medical errors |
For other topics in which compensation or holding someone liable plays a role, see our pages on the settlement agreement, the transition payment, the position of agency workers, tenancy law, and the removal of a BKR registration or an EVR registration.
What does it cost to hire a lawyer?
If another party’s liability is established, the reasonable costs of your legal assistance are in principle borne by the liable party, as a separate item of damage alongside your other damage. This follows from article 6:96(2) of the Civil Code, which expressly classifies the reasonable costs of assessing damage and liability and the reasonable costs of obtaining payment out of court as financial loss.
A double reasonableness test does apply, however: it must be reasonable that you incur costs, and the amount of those costs must be reasonable. As long as liability has not been acknowledged, there is no party yet that pays — make arrangements about that phase in advance. In court proceedings, paragraph 3 means that the ordinary rules on legal costs of article 241 of the Code of Civil Procedure apply. There are also other routes: legal expenses insurance, subsidised legal aid through the Legal Aid Board (Raad voor Rechtsbijstand), joining the criminal proceedings free of charge, or an hourly rate.
| Signal | Why expert assistance matters then |
|---|---|
| Liability is disputed or denied | without acknowledgement you will not get to the damage |
| Contributory negligence is raised against you | the apportionment and the fairness correction are negotiable |
| There is permanent injury or permanent loss of work | the damage extends over decades and must be substantiated with calculations |
| There are several potentially liable parties | the choice of legal basis and opposing party determines the outcome |
| The limitation period is approaching | a time-barred claim cannot be saved |
| The offer is not itemised | what has not been broken down cannot be assessed |
| You are being held liable yourself | admit nothing before the legal basis has been assessed and your insurer has been brought in |
About this advice
Arslan Advocaten handles liability and compensation cases from offices in The Hague, Rotterdam, Amsterdam, Utrecht, Tilburg and Eindhoven. We assist both victims seeking to recover damage and parties being held liable, assess your situation free of charge and work with independent medical advisers and actuaries. In addition to Dutch, we speak Turkish and Polish.
Call the office nearest to you — the direct numbers are below — or send us your question through the contact form. We will tell you where you stand and what the next step is.
Our offices: visiting address and direct telephone number
Each office has its own direct number. The first conversation is free of charge and confidential; besides Dutch we speak Turkish, Polish and English.
| Office | Telephone | Visiting address | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Den Haag | 070 4500 300 | Paletplein 80, 2526 GZ Den Haag | [email protected] |
| Den Haag (Goeverneurlaan) | 070 4500 300 | Goeverneurlaan 445, 2523 CB Den Haag | [email protected] |
| Rotterdam | 010 311 5500 | Schiedamsedijk 60-A, 3011 EH Rotterdam | [email protected] |
| Amsterdam | 020 747 0055 | Pieter Calandlaan 769, 1069 SC Amsterdam | [email protected] |
| Utrecht | 030 747 0038 | Atoomweg 63, 3542 AA Utrecht | [email protected] |
| Tilburg | 013 747 0022 | Kraaivenstraat 38-10, 5048 AB Tilburg | [email protected] |
| Eindhoven | 040 711 3099 | Croy 7C, 5653 LC Eindhoven | [email protected] |
Not sure which office is most convenient? Then call 070 4500 300 or send your question through the contact form; we will put you through to the right colleague.
This page provides general information and is not legal advice about your own case. No rights can be derived from the principles set out here.
Read also: Personal injury during sport or play · Liability in a horse riding accident