From practice · Our own case · Pedestrians and road traffic injury
An insurer cannot dispose of an injury claim merely by asserting that the pedestrian walked into the car. In this case handled by Ömür Arslan, the court examined the statements and the right-of-way situation on a zebra crossing. Univé was held fully liable for the accident-related loss.
The case at a glance
A pedestrian was struck at a crossing. The driver alleged that the pedestrian had deliberately walked into his car. The accounts differed. The court distinguished what witnesses had actually observed from the conclusions they drew. Univé’s objection did not provide sufficient grounds for the overmacht defence, or for reducing compensation on account of contributory fault.
The decision of 2 October 2024 declared Univé fully liable and assessed the costs of the partial-dispute proceedings at €2,410.20, payable by the insurer. The total personal injury loss was not determined. Source: ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2024:6052.
Separate observations from inferences
Witnesses to a traffic incident may be confident in their explanation without having seen the entire event. Saying that someone caused an accident deliberately is different from describing a particular act that was actually observed.
When preparing a case, it helps to ask about position, visibility and timing. Did the witness see the events leading up to the incident, or only the aftermath? What supports the conclusion about intent or speed? These questions make an account verifiable without putting words into a witness’s mouth.
A zebra crossing does not eliminate the need to establish the facts
The right-of-way situation matters, but a legal assessment starts by establishing what happened. Consider where the pedestrian crossed, what the driver could see and the movements of both people involved.
Preserve the accident report, police documents and available footage. Ask witnesses to record their own recollections. Where statements differ, check whether they concern the same moment. A discrepancy does not automatically mean someone is lying.
Overmacht, contributory fault and the extent of loss
A defence that the driver could not have avoided the incident is a different issue from proposing that the pedestrian should bear a percentage of the loss. A further question is how much loss the accident caused.
These issues should not be merged into a single general rejection. When receiving an insurer’s letter, ask which facts and legal grounds support its position. This allows a focused and substantiated response.
No reduction for contributory fault remained in this case. That outcome depends on these particular facts. The separate parcel delivery worker’s case against Allianz, discussed in Dutch, illustrates how different circumstances can lead to partial compensation.
What did the decision achieve for the client?
The liability issue was decided in the pedestrian’s favour, helping the further handling of the claim. The decision did not, however, contain a final calculation of all medical and financial consequences.
The procedural costs are therefore not personal compensation. A declaration of full liability also does not establish that every loss has already been paid. A properly substantiated account of the loss remains necessary.
Frequently asked questions
Is this the same Univé case as the SVI proceedings about intent?
No. This is a separate road traffic case involving a pedestrian. The SVI appeal, discussed in Dutch, concerned a different insurance policy and evidential dispute.
Had the total personal injury compensation been calculated?
No. The decision concerns liability and the costs of the partial-dispute proceedings.
Does being on a zebra crossing always guarantee full compensation?
That cannot be inferred from one decision. The facts, applicable rules and possible defences must be assessed in your own case.
Help after being hit as a pedestrian
Arslan Advocaten can assess the statements and the insurer’s position. Dutch-language background is available on pedestrians hit by cars and our road traffic injury services. You can contact us with the information already available.
Source and scope: Amsterdam court, 2 October 2024, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2024:6052. The judgment date is distinguished from the publication date. No subsequent proceedings or final payment have been established for this article. The zebra-crossing illustration is symbolic, not a reconstruction.
