Written by Onur Arslan, personal injury lawyer at Arslan Advocaten. Registered in the legal practice areas register of the Netherlands Bar for employment law and personal injury. Last updated: 31 August 2026.
What exactly is a workplace accident?
A workplace accident — called an occupational accident in the statute — is an unintended, sudden event that happens to an employee in connection with performing work and that has damage to health almost immediately as its result, with sickness absence or death as the outcome. That description is literally in the definitions in the Working Conditions Act, and it is broader than most people think.
Source: article 1(3) of the Working Conditions Act, wetten.overheid.nl.
Note the element in connection with performing work: not only accidents on the shop floor count, but also those on location, on the road for work, at a client’s premises or during a company outing. "Workplace accident" and "occupational accident" mean the same thing in practice; for your legal position it makes no difference which word you use.
What does not fall under it is the occupational disease: damage that arises gradually through the work — hearing damage, back complaints from years of lifting, lung disease after exposure to substances. That is not an accident, but the basis of liability is the same: there too it turns on the employer’s duty of care. The only difference is that the link between work and complaints is the hardest element there, while with an accident it usually speaks for itself.
Typical workplace accidents: falling from height, being hit by a forklift, being trapped in a machine, cuts from unguarded tools, slipping on a wet floor, falling objects, electrocution, burns and chemical injuries, and aggression by third parties — the last of these above all in healthcare, education, security and public transport.
When is the employer liable for a workplace accident?
The employer is in principle liable for the damage you suffer in the performance of your work, unless they show that they have complied with their duty of care or that the damage is to a significant extent the result of your intent or conscious recklessness. That is not an interpretation: it is almost word for word what the statute says.
Article 7:658(2) of the Dutch Civil Code reads: "The employer is liable towards the employee for the damage the employee suffers in the performance of their work, unless the employer shows that they have complied with the obligations referred to in subsection 1 or that the damage is to a significant extent the result of intent or conscious recklessness on the part of the employee."
Source: article 7:658(2) of the Dutch Civil Code, wetten.overheid.nl.
Read that phrase "unless the employer shows" once more. That is the heart of this page. The legislature deliberately placed the burden of proof on the employer, because the employer arranges the workplace, chooses the equipment, gives the instructions and organises the supervision — and because, unlike you, they hold the documentation: the risk inventory, the instruction forms, the maintenance log, the inspection reports.
| Who | What has to be shown |
|---|---|
| You as the employee | that you have suffered damage, and that you suffered that damage in the performance of your work |
| The employer | that they have complied with their duty of care, or that the damage is to a significant extent the result of your intent or conscious recklessness |
So you do not have to point out exactly which error the employer made — an employee rarely manages that either.
That is how courts put it too. The District Court of Overijssel summarised the standard in 2026: to show that it complied with the duty of care, the employer must "assert and if necessary prove that it took all the measures and gave all the instructions reasonably needed to prevent the damage", where article 7:658(1) of the Dutch Civil Code entails "a broad duty of care" and requires "a high level of safety" of the workspace, the tools and equipment and the organisation of the work.
Source: District Court of Overijssel, ECLI:NL:RBOVE:2026:5111.
This protection is moreover mandatory law. Article 7:658(3) of the Dutch Civil Code provides that subsections 1 and 2, and what title 3 of Book 6 provides about the employer’s liability, cannot be departed from to the employee’s detriment. So a clause in your contract, a staff handbook or a signature under a form in which you "exclude liability" in principle does not stand up.
How do I prove liability after a workplace accident?
In most cases you do not have to prove the employer’s error: you have to make it plausible that you suffered injury in the performance of your work, after which it is up to the employer to exonerate themselves. That is the most important message on this page, and it is precisely the point at which most employees give up before they have started.
We regularly speak to people who call years after an accident with the same sentence: "I thought I could not prove it was their fault anyway." Understandable — with a road accident that is indeed how it works — but with a workplace accident the burden of proof is reversed.
The reversal applies to the question whether the employer fell short, not to the question whether you suffered injury during work. That last point you have to assert and, if it is disputed, prove — but note how light that requirement is. The District Court of Rotterdam put it as follows: "in general it will be sufficient for that purpose that it is established that the accident happened to them at the workplace". You do not have to reconstruct the exact course of events, and in general not to point out which specific safety standard was breached either — that would hollow out the very protection article 7:658(2) of the Dutch Civil Code is intended to give.
Source: District Court of Rotterdam, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2017:8541.
The point most employers do not see coming: where it remains unclear exactly how the accident happened, that does not work out to your disadvantage but to theirs. The Court of Appeal of ‘s-Hertogenbosch put it bluntly: "Uncertainty about how the accident came about therefore means a broader burden of proof for the employer."
Source: Court of Appeal of ‘s-Hertogenbosch, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2021:3717.
So "nobody saw it happen, so I am in a weak position" is with a workplace accident usually incorrect.
Two corrections to that favourable picture, because we do not want to sell you too rosy a story:
- If the employer puts forward concrete factual information — instruction forms, inspection reports, supervision records — then you may be required to give concrete reasons for disputing it. You do not have to prove those facts, but a bare denial is not enough either.
- If the employer does not succeed in their proof, the causal link with the accident is in principle established. They can still escape by proving that complying with the duty of care would not have prevented the accident — where an unclear course of events again works to their disadvantage.
What makes your case strong:
| Evidence | Why it counts |
|---|---|
| A report to the Labour Authority and the investigation that follows | an independent reconstruction by a regulator with no interest in the outcome |
| The internal accident register | the employer has to keep it by law — ask for a copy |
| Witness statements from colleagues | note names the same day; colleagues leave and memories fade |
| Photographs before the clean-up and reports to the company doctor and GP | a medical file in which the accident appears as the cause from the outset |
| The risk inventory and evaluation (RI&E) | if it is missing, or the risk is not in it, that is a strong point |
Ask in writing — by email, so that you have a date — for a copy of the accident report, the internal investigation report and the Labour Authority’s report.
What does the employer’s duty of care concretely involve?
The duty of care obliges the employer to arrange and maintain the workspace, tools and equipment, and to take such measures and give such instructions, as is reasonably needed to prevent the employee suffering damage in the performance of their work. That is the text of article 7:658(1) of the Dutch Civil Code, and it covers four areas at once.
Source: article 7:658(1) of the Dutch Civil Code, wetten.overheid.nl.
| Element | What that means in practice |
|---|---|
| A safe workplace | layout, escape routes, lighting, floors, guarding of dangerous zones, working at height, order and tidiness |
| Sound equipment | machines with the required guards, inspected tools, sound scaffolding and ladders, maintenance and timely replacement, suitable protective equipment |
| Instruction | comprehensible explanation of the risks and the working method — including to new, young and temporary staff, and in a language the employee commands |
| Supervision | making sure the instruction is actually complied with; giving instructions and then looking away is not enough |
That last point is decisive time and again in the case law. An employer who shows that they gave a safety instruction is not there yet: they also have to make it plausible that they supervised compliance — precisely because it is a matter of experience that employees become less careful in the daily routine.
Two limits belong with it. The standard is what is reasonably needed: article 7:658 of the Dutch Civil Code does not aim to give an absolute guarantee against every accident and does not make the employer an insurer of their staff. And with everyday actions without particular danger the duty of care is applied with more restraint than with working with machines, at height or with hazardous substances. The greater the danger, the heavier the requirements as to prevention, instruction and supervision — and with a new or temporary member of staff the bar is higher, not lower.
I made a mistake myself — can I still get compensation?
In principle yes. Ordinary inattentiveness, an error of judgement or a moment of routinely careless working does not stand in the way of a claim: only intent or conscious recklessness on the employee’s part releases the employer. This is the misunderstanding that kills most claims before they are filed.
In the general law of damages the compensation is reduced where the damage is also the result of a circumstance attributable to the victim — article 6:101 of the Dutch Civil Code, the contributory negligence rule. But with a workplace accident the legislature deliberately cut off that route in article 7:658(2). The employer does not get there with "the employee was not paying attention": they have to show intent or conscious recklessness, and that the damage is to a significant extent the result of it.
Courts make that distinction expressly. In a 2025 ruling of the District Court of Rotterdam it was established that the employee had been "careless/inattentive" — she was working quickly because she wanted to prove herself — but that did not amount to intent or conscious recklessness. The subdistrict judge considered: "The fact that the employee is partly to blame for an accident arising is not relevant, since the text of article 7:658 of the Dutch Civil Code provides that the damage must be the result of intent or conscious recklessness on the employee’s part, which is something other than the result of the employee’s contributory fault."
Source: District Court of Rotterdam, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2025:9448.
Why did the legislature make that choice? Because it proceeds from the matter of experience that employees doing the same work day in day out become less careful. That is not a weakness of the individual employee but a predictable consequence of routine — and it is precisely that which the employer has to take into account when organising the work.
Concretely: you forgot your gloves, you took a shortcut past the machine, you skipped a step under time pressure, you breached a rule. In principle none of that is a bar. The question then shifts to whether the employer supervised it — and with time pressure even to whether that time pressure is attributable to them.
By way of illustration. An employee at a distribution centre steps over a pallet at the end of a busy shift instead of walking round it, and sprains his ankle. He does not report the accident and claims nothing, because he considers it was his own stupid mistake. Legally that is the wrong question. Inattentiveness or a routine shortcut is not intent and not conscious recklessness; the employer does not get off with that. What does have to be examined is whether the walkways were clear, whether that was supervised and whether the workload encouraged that shortcut. This is an illustrative example of the rule, not a case handled by our firm.
What can play a part: with an additional basis alongside article 7:658 of the Dutch Civil Code — for example with a road accident for which an insurance obligation applies — contributory negligence can to a limited extent play a part. So have your situation assessed rather than concluding yourself that you have no chance.
When is there intent or conscious recklessness?
There is conscious recklessness only where the employee was, immediately before the accident, actually aware of the reckless character of their conduct — not where they ought to have known or could have known. That standard is strict, subjective and in practice rarely met.
The Supreme Court formulated this in its judgment of 20 September 1996 (ECLI:NL:HR:1996:ZC2142, Pollemans/Hoondert). The essence: only where the employee is, while performing the conduct immediately preceding the accident, actually aware of its reckless character is there consciously reckless conduct. And expressly also: the circumstance that the employee had been warned repeatedly is not in itself enough to assume that awareness.
Source: Supreme Court 20 September 1996, ECLI:NL:HR:1996:ZC2142, rechtspraak.nl.
| What the employer puts forward | Why that is in principle not enough |
|---|---|
| "He had been warned" | a warning does not prove that you were aware of the danger at that moment |
| "It was in the safety rules" | knowing a set of rules is something other than being aware at that moment |
| "He should have known better" | that is culpability, not awareness — the standard is subjective |
| "He had been doing it that way for years" | routine actually points to reduced alertness, and that does not work to your disadvantage |
On top of that comes a second hurdle for the employer: even where conscious recklessness is established, the damage must be to a significant extent the result of it. Two separate requirements, both to be proved by them. There is intent only where the employee wanted the injury; that virtually never occurs.
Reporting a workplace accident: what must the employer do, and what if they do not?
The employer must report occupational accidents leading to death, permanent injury or hospital admission immediately to the Netherlands Labour Authority, and in addition keep a list of reported accidents and of accidents involving more than three working days’ absence. That duty is in article 9 of the Working Conditions Act.
Article 9(1) of the Working Conditions Act: "The employer reports occupational accidents leading to death, permanent injury or hospital admission immediately to the supervisory authority designated for that purpose and, on request, reports on them to that authority as soon as possible." Subsection 2 adds that they keep a list of the reported accidents and of occupational accidents that have led to absence of more than three working days, with the nature and date of the accident.
Source: article 9 of the Working Conditions Act, wetten.overheid.nl.
Reporting is done through the Netherlands Labour Authority, by telephone on 0800 51 51 or via the report form on nlarbeidsinspectie.nl. A fatal accident must always be reported by telephone; for that the authority is reachable day and night. If your employer is unsure whether the accident is notifiable, the authority’s starting point is: report it, and the authority will assess it.
Source: Netherlands Labour Authority, reporting an occupational accident.
Why this can be decisive for you. The report as a rule leads to an on-site investigation shortly after the accident, while the situation has not yet been cleared up and those involved still remember everything. The report that comes out of it is often the heaviest document in the file.
And if the accident was not reported? That happens more often than you would expect.
- You can report it yourself. An employee, family member or witness can also report an accident. Do so quickly — the return on an investigation decreases by the day.
- The failure to report does not in principle work to your disadvantage. The duty to report rests on the employer; the absence of a report does not make your claim invalid. It does breach a statutory duty, for which the Labour Authority can impose an administrative fine. We deliberately give no amount: the level depends on the breach, the size of the business and the circumstances.
- It makes your evidential position heavier, not impossible. You fall back on witnesses, your own internal report, the medical file and the documentation the employer still has to produce.
Report the accident internally in any event, in writing and on the day itself. An email or WhatsApp message to your manager with the date, time, place, how it happened and your complaints is later one of your strongest documents. Do not go home saying "I’m all right"; that sentence ends up in the file and is used against you years later.
A workplace accident as an agency worker: who is liable?
With a workplace accident involving an agency worker both the business where you actually work (the hirer) and the employment agency can be liable — the hirer under article 7:658(4) of the Dutch Civil Code, the agency as formal employer under that same duty of care. You may address both and do not have to work out first which of the two was "most at fault".
Article 7:658(4) of the Dutch Civil Code: "A person who, in the exercise of their profession or business, has work carried out by a person with whom they have no employment contract is liable in accordance with subsections 1 to 3 for the damage that person suffers in the performance of their work." The statute expressly designates the subdistrict court as the competent court for that claim.
Source: article 7:658(4) of the Dutch Civil Code, wetten.overheid.nl.
The thinking behind it: an entrepreneur’s freedom to choose whether to have the work done by their own people or by hired-in staff must not affect protection against accidents. A district court summarised it in 2025 as follows: the subsection exists precisely for the situation in which "a posted or hired-in employee can address the hirer as well as their formal employer for damage they suffer in the performance of the work assigned".
Source: District Court of The Hague, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2025:16240.
The consequence: the same reversed burden of proof applies towards the hirer. They are liable unless they show that they complied with their duty of care or that there was intent or conscious recklessness on your part.
More than that: the duty of care towards an agency worker is not lighter but heavier. You are new to the workplace, do not know the habits, more often get the work permanent staff would rather not do, and are less inclined to refuse. The hirer has to take into account that you do not yet know the risks.
| Question | The answer in principle |
|---|---|
| Whom do I address? | the hirer, the employment agency, or both — you do not have to choose, and addressing both is often actually sensible |
| Does the burden of proof change? | no, it remains reversed — towards the hirer too |
| What if my contract ends because of the illness? | then you as a rule fall back on a Sickness Benefits Act payment through UWV instead of continued pay |
| Does my damages claim continue to exist? | yes; the loss of income the benefit does not cover is a head of loss |
By way of illustration. An agency worker is put behind a pallet truck in a warehouse on his second day. He gets hardly any instruction; the permanent colleagues know where the busy crossing is, he does not. Something goes wrong and he is injured. The agency points to the hirer, the hirer points to the agency. He does not have to settle that argument: the business where he actually worked can be addressed alongside the agency, and towards both the same reversed burden of proof applies. The question is whether instruction and supervision were geared to someone who does not yet know the workplace. This is an illustrative example of the rule, not a case handled by our firm.
That last point explains why agency workers are hit hardest financially after a workplace accident. If your agency contract ends during illness on the agreed end date, your income drops to as a rule 70% of your daily wage. The difference from what you would have earned is damage you can claim.
*Read on: your rights as an agency worker.*
A workplace accident as a self-employed contractor or subcontractor: are you protected too?
A self-employed contractor or subcontractor can also rely on article 7:658(4) of the Dutch Civil Code, provided they were dependent for their safety on the person for whom they performed the work and that work fell within that person’s profession or business. So the fact that the word "self-employed contractor" is not in the statute does not mean you fall outside the protection.
The Supreme Court worked this out in its judgment of 23 March 2012 (ECLI:NL:HR:2012:BV0616, Davelaar/Allspan). That case concerned someone who without an employment relationship carried out work on a fibre-processing machine and in doing so lost his right leg above the knee. What is decisive is whether the client has a duty of care towards someone who is dependent on them for their safety, and whether the work belongs to that client’s profession or business.
Source: Supreme Court 23 March 2012, ECLI:NL:HR:2012:BV0616, rechtspraak.nl.
Whether it applies in your case depends on the circumstances: did you work on the site, with the equipment and under the safety organisation of the client, was your work directed by them, and were you able to protect yourself against this risk?
A usable rule of thumb from the case law: if it concerned work the client could also have had done by their own employees, then that work readily falls within their profession or business and thereby within the scope of subsection 4. On that basis a hirer was held liable towards someone with whom they had no employment contract. Source: Court of Appeal of ‘s-Hertogenbosch, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2010:BP8468.
For self-employed contractors there is a second reason to take this seriously: you have no continued payment of wages and usually no right to a benefit after two years of illness. Without disability insurance your income falls away immediately after an accident. So for a self-employed contractor the question whether there is a liable client often weighs far more heavily financially than for an employee.
An accident on the road: does that count as a workplace accident too?
A road accident that happens to you during work in principle falls under the employer’s protection; commuting as a rule falls outside it. The distinction is sharp and it determines whether you have a claim.
For road accidents during work an additional basis applies alongside article 7:658 of the Dutch Civil Code: the good employership in article 7:611 of the Dutch Civil Code gives rise to an obligation to provide a proper insurance for employees who take part in road traffic in the performance of their work — because the employer simply cannot control other people’s traffic behaviour.
| Ruling | What was decided |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court 1 February 2008, ECLI:NL:HR:2008:BB6175 | the employer must provide a proper insurance for employees who, as participants in road traffic, may suffer damage in the performance of their work |
| Supreme Court 12 December 2008, ECLI:NL:HR:2008:BD3129 (Maatzorg) | that obligation also applies to employees who take part in traffic by bicycle, and to pedestrians in an accident involving a vehicle |
| Supreme Court 11 November 2011, ECLI:NL:HR:2011:BR5215 (TNT) | the insurance obligation is limited to road accidents; there is no general insurance obligation for all occupational accidents |
Source: rechtspraak.nl, the judgments named.
The limit also follows from that last judgment: a postal worker who slipped on foot without a vehicle being involved fell outside the insurance obligation. The insurance moreover does not have to cover damage caused by intent or conscious recklessness. If you use your own car for work, the employer can also satisfy the obligation by putting you financially in a position to take out a proper insurance yourself.
Commuting. Ordinary travel between home and the fixed workplace does not in principle count as performing work, and therefore as a rule falls outside article 7:658 of the Dutch Civil Code and outside the insurance obligation. That is different where the travelling itself is part of the work — from client to client, from one building site to another, or transport organised by the employer.
Important: if your accident falls outside the employer’s liability, you are not left without a claim. If another road user is liable, your claim runs through their third-party insurer — with, for cyclists and pedestrians, a specially protected position in relation to motor vehicles.
What damage can you claim after a workplace accident?
You can in principle claim your full loss: the income you miss now and in the future, your medical costs, domestic help, adaptations, travel costs, the costs of your legal assistance, and non-material damages for the suffering itself as well. With serious injury the loss of earning capacity is usually by far the largest head — many times larger than the non-material damages.
| Head of loss | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Loss of earning capacity | the difference between what you would have earned without the accident and what you receive now, including missed promotions and pension accrual, up to your retirement age |
| Medical costs | the excess, own contributions, treatments outside the basic package, medication, aids |
| Domestic help | what you can no longer do yourself, including where your partner or family take it over |
| Care, adaptations and travel costs | informal care by family members, adaptation of the home, car or workplace, journeys to practitioners |
| Do-it-yourself work | jobs, garden and maintenance you can no longer do yourself |
| Retraining and reintegration | what is needed to be able to do other work |
| Out-of-court costs | the reasonable costs of your lawyer and medical adviser |
| Non-material damages | the compensation for pain, grief and loss of enjoyment of life |
We deliberately give no standard amounts. "What do I get for a broken leg" cannot be answered: two people with exactly the same injury can be far apart, because one can resume their profession and the other cannot. Amounts circulating on the internet are almost always either too high — leading to disappointment — or too low, causing people to accept a poor offer.
*Read on about the compensation for the suffering itself: non-material damages in personal injury cases.*
Two points that are often missed:
- A settlement agreement can cut off your claim. If you leave with a settlement agreement, the personal injury claim in principle continues to exist — but only if it has not been taken up in a full and final discharge. So always have a settlement agreement checked before you sign. See: settlement agreement and transition payment.
- Your employer has a claim of their own too. If they continue to pay your wages while someone else is liable, they have under article 6:107a(2) of the Dutch Civil Code their own right of recourse against that person, up to at most the amount for which that person would have been liable without the obligation to continue paying wages.
Who pays the excess after a workplace accident?
The excess on your health insurance is first simply charged to you, but it is a head of loss that you can in principle recover from the liable party. There is no arrangement under which the excess automatically falls away with a workplace accident — that is the misunderstanding behind this frequently asked question.
How it works:
- Your health insurer reimburses the treatment from the basic package and sets off your compulsory excess against it: in 2026 € 385 a year for insured persons of 18 and older. Source: Dutch government, health insurance excess. So you pay that amount yourself first.
- Once liability is established, you include the excess paid as a head of loss. Keep your health insurer’s statement.
- If the treatment runs over the turn of the year — and with injury that almost always happens — that applies for every calendar year in which treatments take place.
- If you have voluntarily chosen a higher excess, the recoverable part is as a rule the compulsory part; there can be discussion about the voluntary part, because you chose that yourself in exchange for a lower premium.
The health insurer also recovers the costs it paid directly from the liable party. That runs outside you and is not at the expense of your claim.
A workplace accident: what should you do? Step-by-step plan
The most important things happen in the first few days: have the accident recorded, have your injury recorded medically, and hold the employer liable in writing before the workplace has been cleared up and memories fade. Almost every case we can later no longer save was lost in that first week.
On the day itself:
- Get medical help, even if the complaints seem mild. Tell the doctor expressly that it concerns an accident at work.
- Report the accident to your manager and in writing, with the date, time, place, how it happened and your complaints.
- Ask whether it has been reported to the Netherlands Labour Authority. If not, and it concerns permanent injury or a hospital admission, report it yourself on 0800 51 51.
- Take photographs of the place, the machine, the tools, the floor, the lighting and of your injury — before anything is cleared up.
- Note the names and telephone numbers of witnesses.
- Keep damaged clothing, shoes, helmet or tools. That is evidence.
In the weeks that follow:
- Report all your complaints fully to the GP and the company doctor. Play nothing down.
- Ask in writing for a copy of the accident report and the internal investigation report.
- Hold your employer — and where you are hired in, the employment agency or the hirer as well — liable in writing. With that you also interrupt the limitation period.
- Keep a loss file: receipts, invoices, travel costs, hours of help from family.
- Start a diary: complaints, limitations, what you no longer do, who helps you.
- Sign nothing from an insurer while your medical situation is still changing.
What you should not do: agree to a quick offer, sign a broad medical authorisation, or sign a full and final discharge before it is clear what permanently remains of the injury.
How does a Sickness Benefits Act or WIA payment relate to my damages claim?
A benefit does not replace your damages claim: it covers only part of your income, and the difference between what you would have earned without the accident and what you receive now is precisely the loss you recover from the liable party. With permanent incapacity for work that difference quickly becomes the largest amount in the file.
| Phase | What in principle applies |
|---|---|
| First two years of illness, still employed | your employer continues to pay wages: over a period of 104 weeks 70% of the wage determined by reference to time, the first 52 weeks at least the statutory minimum wage. Many collective agreements provide a higher supplement (article 7:629(1) of the Dutch Civil Code) |
| Contract ends during illness, or you are an agency worker | you fall back on the Sickness Benefits Act: as a rule 70% of your daily wage, for a maximum of 104 weeks from the first day of illness (article 29(5) and (7) of the Sickness Benefits Act) |
| After 104 weeks | WIA assessment by UWV |
| Less than 35% incapacitated for work | in principle no WIA payment — and it is precisely then that the civil damages claim is your only safety net |
| 35% or more, not permanently fully incapacitated | WGA, at a level depending on the degree of incapacity for work |
| Fully and permanently incapacitated for work | IVA |
Source: article 7:629 of the Dutch Civil Code, article 29 of the Sickness Benefits Act and the Work and Income (Capacity for Work) Act, wetten.overheid.nl.
Three things that go wrong here:
- "I get a benefit anyway, so I have no loss." Incorrect. 70% of your wage means you structurally give up 30%, and the daily wage is moreover capped. That loss is recoverable damage.
- The 35% threshold is a hard blow. Anyone assessed as 30% incapacitated for work gets no WIA but certainly does have a loss of income — sometimes for the rest of their career. This is the group that falls deepest without a damages claim.
- Benefits are set off, not deducted from your entitlement. In calculating the loss, what you receive in wages and benefits counts; what remains stays your claim.
Do not be discouraged by the WIA outcome: a low assessment of incapacity for work is an administrative-law judgment about your earning capacity and does not bind the civil court in establishing your loss.
How long does a personal injury case take after a workplace accident?
A straightforward case with acknowledged liability and full recovery can be settled within a few months; with permanent injury a case as a rule takes years, because the loss can only be quantified once your medical situation is stable. That is frustrating, but it is also your protection: settling too early means that a later deterioration is at your expense.
The time it takes depends on whether liability is acknowledged, whether your injury has stabilised, and whether a medical expert examination and an actuarial calculation are needed.
What you do not have to wait for: where liability is acknowledged an advance payment is usual, so that money becomes available for ongoing costs and loss of income. If no advance payment is offered, ask for one expressly. And if things get stuck on one point — liability, the choice of expert, the amount of a head of loss — a partial dispute procedure can have the court decide on it without litigating the whole case. In that procedure the court assesses the reasonable costs on the side of the person suffering personal injury (article 1019aa of the Code of Civil Procedure); those therefore count as a head of loss, not as litigation costs.
How long do I have? Limitation after a workplace accident
For personal injury there is one period: five years, counted from the day after the day on which you became aware both of the damage and of the person liable. The absolute limit of twenty years that applies to other claims for damages expressly does not apply to injury and death claims. That follows from article 3:310(5) of the Dutch Civil Code.
Source: article 3:310 of the Dutch Civil Code, wetten.overheid.nl.
So the period does not automatically start on the day of the accident: with injury that only becomes apparent later, or with a liable party who only comes into view later, it can start later. With occupational diseases that is regularly the case.
Interrupting the period is simple and sensible. A written notice in which you unequivocally reserve your right to performance in principle starts a fresh period. Do so by registered post or by email, and keep the proof. Many people wrongly think that an accident three or four years ago is "too old"; it is by no means always. If you are in doubt, have it assessed before you do anything else — a time-barred claim cannot be saved, however strong the case is on the merits.
Special situations: care institutions, language barriers and aggression at work
The duty of care becomes heavier the more reason the employer had to reckon with a risk — and that applies in particular to foreseeable aggression, to employees who do not command the language of instruction and to agency and on-call staff who do not yet know the workplace.
Personal injury in a care institution. Care workers suffer injury through lifting, through falls and through aggression by clients or visitors. Aggression by third parties does not release the employer from their duty of care: where the risk is foreseeable, what matters is whether there was an aggression protocol, whether people worked alone or in pairs, whether there was an alarm facility, and whether there was training and supervision.
Workplace accidents caused by language problems. An instruction the employee does not understand is in fact no instruction. If Polish, Turkish, Romanian or Arabic is the working language in your team, the employer has to satisfy themselves that the safety instruction actually got across — with translation, pictograms, demonstrated work or an interpreter. A signature under a Dutch-language form does not prove that. Our firm speaks Turkish and Polish, which makes a practical difference when establishing how the accident happened.
How do I choose a personal injury lawyer after a workplace accident, and what does that cost?
If another party’s liability is established, the reasonable costs of your legal assistance are in principle for the account of the liable party, as a separate head of loss alongside your other loss. That is the most under-reported fact in personal injury practice: people forgo expert assistance because they think they cannot afford it, while the law in fact places those costs among the loss to be compensated.
The basis is article 6:96(2) of the Dutch Civil Code, which also treats as financial loss: the reasonable costs of establishing damage and liability and of obtaining satisfaction out of court. A double reasonableness test applies to this: it must be reasonable that you incur costs, and their extent must be reasonable. Note the limit in subsection 3: in court proceedings the ordinary litigation costs rules apply.
Source: article 6:96 of the Dutch Civil Code, wetten.overheid.nl.
Two caveats: for as long as liability has not been acknowledged, there is as yet no party paying — make arrangements about that phase in advance. And where there is a degree of contributory negligence, part of the costs can also remain at your expense.
| What to look at when choosing | Why it counts |
|---|---|
| Specialisation in personal injury and in employment law | a workplace accident touches both: liability and your position as an employee |
| Independence from insurers | anyone who also works for insurers is sitting on two chairs in this case |
| Is your loss mapped out in full? | loss of earning capacity is the largest head and the most often underestimated |
| Their own medical adviser and actuary | without those two a case with permanent injury cannot be substantiated |
| Clear cost arrangements before acknowledgement, and language | that is the only phase with financial uncertainty, and you have to be able to understand your own case |
When you definitely need expert help: where liability is disputed, where contributory negligence or conscious recklessness is raised against you, where there is permanent injury or permanent loss of work, where a medical expert examination is proposed, or where the insurer’s offer is not broken down per head of loss. An offer that is not specified cannot be assessed — and therefore cannot be accepted either.
With us you can have your situation assessed free of charge before you decide anything.
About this advice
Arslan Advocaten handles personal injury cases from offices in The Hague, Rotterdam, Amsterdam, Utrecht, Tilburg and Eindhoven. We assist employees, agency workers and self-employed contractors after workplace accidents and occupational diseases, assess your situation free of charge and work with independent medical advisers and actuaries. Besides Dutch we speak Turkish and Polish.
Call 070 450 0300 or send us your question through the contact form. We will let you know where you stand and what the next step is.
This page gives general information and is not legal advice about your own case. No rights can be derived from the principles set out here.