Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Netherlands

  • Chapter
Book cover European Tort Law 2004

Part of the book series: Tort and Insurance Law Yearbook ((TILY,volume 2004))

  • 296 Accesses

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature

  1. For further detail see M. Faure/ T. Hartlief, The Netherlands, in: H. Koziol/ B.C. Steininger (eds.), European Tort Law 2003 (2004), 280–281.

    Google Scholar 

  2. See for an earlier discussion M. Faure/ T. Hartlief, The Netherlands in: H. Koziol/ B.C. Steininger (eds.), European Tort Law 2001 (2002), 356–358 nos. 11–13.

    Google Scholar 

  3. An interesting lecture of Minister Dormer in which he develops his ideas has been published in [2003] Verkeersrecht (VR), 349–351.

    Google Scholar 

  4. See in this respect documents of the Second Chamber of Representatives II 2003–2004, 29 200 VI, no. 168 and see more generally on the effectiveness of the claims handling procedure W.C.T. Weterings, Efficiëntere en Effectievere Afwikkeling van Letselschadeclaims (dissertation University of Tilburg, 2004), as well as R.M.J.T. van Dort/L.H. Pals, Rechtshulp bij letselschade anno 2004. De kwaliteit lijdt!, [2004] Tijdschrift voor Vergoeding Personenschade (TVP), 43–50.

    Google Scholar 

  5. See in that respect an interesting contribution by Van Boom on the obligation of the various parties in handling claims resulting from labour related incidents: W.H. van Boom, [2004] Nederlands Juristenblad (NJB), 928–936.

    Google Scholar 

  6. See in this respect the contributions in the proceedings volume of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (Vereniging van Letselschade Advocaten — LSA), Schade: Vergoeden of Beperken? (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  7. See documents of the Second Chamber of Representatives, II, 2003–2004. 29 414, no. 1–2. For a comment on (various aspects of) this proposal see inter alia W.H. van Boom, [2004] Weekblad voor Privaatrecht, Notariaat en Registratie (WPNR) 6579, 384–387 and G.M. van Wassenaer, [2004] VR, 165–168.

    Google Scholar 

  8. See M. Faure/ T. Hartlief B.C. Steininger (eds.), European Tort Law 2003 (2004) (supra fn. 1), 279 nos. 5–6.

    Google Scholar 

  9. See T. Hartlief/ S. Klosse (eds.), Einde van het Aansprakelijkheidsrecht? (2003). See the discussion of this book in M. Faure/T. Harlief (supra fn. 1), 309, no. 96.

    Google Scholar 

  10. See more particularly W.H. van Boom, [2004] TVP, 1–2

    Google Scholar 

  11. For details see M. Faure/ T. Hartief B.C. Steininger (eds.), European Tort Law 2003 (2004) (supra fn. 1), 280–281, nos. 7–9.

    Google Scholar 

  12. See for a comment on this new Dutch approach to the statute of limitations: E. de Kezel, in: Liber Amicorum en Marcel Storme Tijdschrift voor Privaatrecht (2004), 107–143.

    Google Scholar 

  13. See M. Faure/ T. Harlief B.C. Steininger (eds.), European Tort Law 2003 (2004) (supra fn. 1), 304–306, nos. 78–84.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hoge Raad 7 May 2004, [2004] Rechtspraak van de Week (RvdW), 67. See on this case equally T. Hartlief, Leven in een claimcultuur: wie is er bang voor Amerikaanse toestanden?, lecture at the occasion of the 29th Dies Natalis of the University of Maastricht on 14 January 2005, University of Maastricht; 38–39 and see on these issues more generally I. Giesen, Toezicht en aansprakelijkheid (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  15. For a critical review of this case see T. Hartlief, Kroniek aansprakelijkheids en schadevergoedingsrecht 2003–2004, [2004] Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Burgerlijk recht (NTBR), 462–475.

    Google Scholar 

  16. See W.H. van Boom/ I. Giesen, [2001] NJB, 1675–1685.

    Google Scholar 

  17. So T. Hartlief, [2004] NTBR, no. 5.

    Google Scholar 

  18. See inter alia Hoge Raad 11 December 1987, [1988] Nederlandse Jurisprudentie (NJ), 393 with case note by W.C.L. van der Grinten and see Hoge Raad 23 June 1989, [1991] VR, 154 with case note by H.A. Bouman.

    Google Scholar 

  19. For a recent example of another accident with an open trap door to a cellar see Civil Court of Amsterdam 10 June 2003, [2003] VR, 174.

    Google Scholar 

  20. It concerns more particularly Hoge Raad 26 September 2003, [2003] NJ, 660 and Hoge Raad 28 May 2004, [2005] NJ, 105 with case note by C.J.H. Brunner, [2004] Ars Aequi, 866–873.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hoge Raad 6 November 1989, [1989] NJ, 567 with case note by C.J.H. Brunner.

    Google Scholar 

  22. For the discussion of that case law see M. Faure/ T. Hartlief, The Netherlands, in H. Koziol/ B.C. Steininger (supra fn. 2), 358–359, no. 16.

    Google Scholar 

  23. See on these issues also E.J. Dommering, [2004] NTBR, 72–79.

    Google Scholar 

  24. See generally Hoge Raad 20 June 1986, [1986] NJ, 780, Hoge Raad 11 December 1987, [1988] NJ, 393 and Hoge Raad 9 December 1994, [1996] NJ, 403 with case note by C.J.H. Brunner.

    Google Scholar 

  25. This was held by W.C.L. van der Grinten in his case note with Hoge Raad 11 December 1987, [1988] NJ, 393 and by J. Hijma in his case note with Hoge Raad 12 May 2000, [2001] NJ, 300.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Court of Appeals of Leeuwarden 23 July 2003, [2004] VR, 24.

    Google Scholar 

  27. See Hoge Raad 28 March 2003, [2003] NJ, 718 and 719 with case note by C.J.H. Brunner.

    Google Scholar 

  28. See M. Faure/ T. Hartlief B.C. Steininger (eds.), European Tort Law 2003 (2004) (supra fn. 1), 282–284, nos. 16–21.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Hoge Raad 20 February 2004, [2004] NJ, 238, [2004] NTBR, 250–251 with case note by P.LP. Meiser, see on this issue also E.H. Hondius, [2004] Ars Aequi, 335.

    Google Scholar 

  30. See T. Hartlief, [2004] NTBR, 464–465, no. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Hoge Raad 27 May 1988, [1989] NJ, 29 with case note by W.C.L. van der Grinten.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hoge Raad 20 March 1992, [1993] NJ, 547 with case note by C.J.H. Brunner. See in this respect also Hoge Raad 6 September 1996, [1998] NJ, 415 with case note by C.J.H. Brunner.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Hoge Raad 26 September 2003, [2003] NJ, 660, [2004] Aansprakelijkheid, Verzekering en Schade (AV&S), 35–39 with case note by I. Giesen. See on this case also J.J. van der Helm, [2004] VR, 33–35.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Hoge Raad 27 May 1988, [1989] NJ, 29 with case note by W.C.L. van der Grinten.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Hoge Raad 28 May 2004, [2005] NJ, 105 with case note by C.J.H. Brunner, [2004] Ars Aequi, 866–873.

    Google Scholar 

  36. A call in this respect had been formulated by C.E. Du Perron, [1996] Bedrijfsjuridische Berichten, 175–176.

    Google Scholar 

  37. See in this respect Civil Court of Amsterdam 10 June 2003, [2003] VR, 174, holding that simply placing a barstool close to an open trap door to the cellar is an insufficient precautionary measure.

    Google Scholar 

  38. This solution is also suggested in Hoge Raad 20 March 1992, [1993] NJ, 547 with case note by C.J.H. Brunner, being the bus lock decision of the Hoge Raad with respect to the liability of the authority liable for traffic management.

    Google Scholar 

  39. See for instance M. Faure/ T. Hartlief B.C. Steininger (eds.), European Tort Law 2003 (2004) (supra fn. 1), 288–292, nos. 33–42.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Hoge Raad 30 March 2001, [2003] NJ, 615 with case note by M. Scheltema.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Hoge Raad 17 September 2004, C03/068HR.

    Google Scholar 

  42. See particularly T. Hartlief, [2004] NTBR, 466–467, no. 12.

    Google Scholar 

  43. See on these issues equally M.K.G. Tjepkema, Het referentiekader van het égalité-beginsel, Overheid en Aansprakelijkheid (2004), 12–22.

    Google Scholar 

  44. See in this respect more particularly G.E. van Maanen, in: Schadevergoeding bij Rechtmatige Overheidsdaad (2002), 81 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  45. These descendants have moreover (unsuccessfully) tried to file a claim in tort against the psychotherapist to whom the convicted criminal would have told that he was planning to kill a specific person. See in this respect Civil Court of Assen, 16 July 2003, [2003] NJ, 585, [2003] NTBR, 601 and following with case note by EP.D. Engelhard. See for a discussion of this case also J.K.M. Gevers, [2003] Tijdschrift voor Gezondheidsrecht, 523.

    Google Scholar 

  46. See M. Faure/ T. Hartlief B.C. Steininger (eds.), European Tort Law 2003 (2004) (supra fn. 1), 294–298, nos. 49–61.

    Google Scholar 

  47. See concerning the potential problems of insurability resulting from this case law EJ. Blom, De (on)verzekerbaarheid van werkgeversaansprakelijkheid, [2004] Praktisch Procederen, 67–72.

    Google Scholar 

  48. As we have mentioned in previous Yearbooks the developments concerning the expanding employers’ liability especially occurred very rapidly in the nineties. See in this respect for instance A.J.C.M. Geers, [2003] Sociaal Recht (SR), 396–400. Earlier we also discussed the case law of the Hoge Raad concerning work-related traffic incidents (M. Faure/T. Hartlief, The Netherlands, in: European Tort Law 2002 (2003), 313–314, no. 17). For recent developments in this respect see EJ. van Sandick, [2004] VR, 197–202 and for the possible application of this case law to civil servants see JJ. Van der Helm, [2004] VR, 202–206.

    Google Scholar 

  49. See for instance M. Cancian-van Ballegooijen, Alles of niets?! Werkgeversaansprakelijkheid en schuldverdeling bij beroepsziekten, Arbeidsrecht, 2004/4, 8–14.

    Google Scholar 

  50. See in this respect B. Sorgdrager, [2003] TVP, 73–75.

    Google Scholar 

  51. See for instance Hoge Raad 18 September 1998, [1999] NJ, 45 with case note by P.A. Stein and Hoge Raad 19 October 2001, [2001] NJ, 663.

    Google Scholar 

  52. M. Faure/ T. Hartlief B.C. Steininger (eds.), European Tort Law 2003 (2004) (supra fn. 1), 294–295, nos. 49–52.

    Google Scholar 

  53. See on these issues more generally T. Hartlief, [2003] WPNR 6559, 933–934.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Hoge Raad 4 October 2002 [2004] NJ, 175.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Hoge Raad 16 May 2003, [2004] NJ, 176, [2003] SR, 228–231 with case note by C.J. Loonstra, [2004] TVP, 82–83 with case note by W.H. Bouman and [2003] VR, 369–370 with case note by L. Bier.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Hoge Raad 12 September 2003, [2004] NJ, 177 with case note by G.J.J. Heerma van Voss, [2003] NTBR, 538–539 with case note by EP.D. Engelhard, [2004] AV&S, 82–83 with case note by C.J.M. Klaassen.

    Google Scholar 

  57. This is also what Attorney General Spier sees in his opinion before Hoge Raad 9 July 2004, [2004], Jurisprudentie Arbeidsrecht (JAR), 190.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Hoge Raad 9 July 2004, [2004] JAR, 190. However, in Hoge Raad 5 November 2004, liability of the employer is assumed again.

    Google Scholar 

  59. See in this respect inter alia A.J.C.M. Geers/ J.M. Ruijgrok/ R. van de Water, [2003] NJB, 2034–2041 and see specifically concerning the burden of proof in these cases K. Kas/H.W. van Osch, [2004/3] Arbeidsrecht, 26–33 and H.J.W. Alt, [2004/6/7] Arbeidsrecht, 32–36 as well as M.S.A. Vegter, [2004] TVP, 3–10.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Hoge Raad 4 June 2004, C03/034HR.

    Google Scholar 

  61. M. Faure/ T. Hartlief B.C. Steininger (eds.), European Tort Law 2003 (2004) (supra fn. 1), 297–298, nos. 55–58.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Court of Appeals of Amsterdam 11 December 2003, [2004] JAR, 25, [2004] SR, 106–107 with case note by M.S.A. Vegter.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Civil Court of Amsterdam 7 April 2004, [2004] JAR, 108.

    Google Scholar 

  64. See M. Faure/ T. Hartlief (supra fn. 53), 315–316, nos. 19–20.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Hoge Raad 29 November 2002, [2004] NJ, 304 and 305 with case note by W.D.H. Asser.

    Google Scholar 

  66. In the most recent one (Hoge Raad 9 July 2004, see C03/081HR) the Hoge Raad upholds the decisions of the Court of Appeals to apply the reversal rule.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Hoge Raad 9 April 2004, [2004] NJ, 308 with case note by W.D.H. Asser.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Hoge Raad 7 May 2004, [2004] NJ, 422 with case note by W.D.H. Asser.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Hoge Raad 19 March 2004, [2004] NJ, 307 with case note by W.D.H. Asser, [2004] TBR, 289–292, with case note by E.P.D. Engelhard and see also C.H. van Dijk in [2004] TVP, 63–68.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Dr. J was not the regular general practitioner of the family, but a doctor on duty.

    Google Scholar 

  71. The Hoge Raad refers in this respect to Hoge Raad 2 March 2001, [2001] NJ, 649.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Hoge Raad 23 November 2001, [2002] NJ, 387 and 388 with case note by J.B.M. Vranken.

    Google Scholar 

  73. So also T. Hartlief, [2004] NTBR, 470–471, no. 20 and see on the desirability of the reversal rule more generally P. Abas, [2003] NTBR, 448–450 and S.E. Lindenbergh, [2004] WPNR, 6580, 433–435.

    Google Scholar 

  74. See the case van Schravendijk/ Den Haag (Hoge Raad 1 July 1993, [1995] NJ, 43 with case note by C.J.H. Brunner).

    Google Scholar 

  75. See Hoge Raad 7 May 2004, [2005] NJ, 76 with case note by C.J.H. Brunner.

    Google Scholar 

  76. See more particularly T. Hartlief, [2004] NTBR, 469–470, no. 19.

    Google Scholar 

  77. See for instance Hoge Raad 22 February 2002, [2002] NJ, 240 with case note by J.B.M. Vran-ken but also Hoge Raad 19 December 2003, [2004] NJ, 348.

    Google Scholar 

  78. So also A.J. Verheij in his case note under Hoge Raad 9 May 2003, [2004] AV&S, 77–81.

    Google Scholar 

  79. See in this respect more particularly S.D. Lindenbergh, De positie en de handhaving van per-soonlijkheidsrechten in het Nederlandse privaatrecht, [1999] Tijdschrift voor Privaatrecht (TPR), 1665 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  80. See in this respect the extensive argumentation by A.J. Verheij, Vergoeding van immateriële schade wegens aantasting in de persoon (dissertation, Free University of Amsterdam, 2002), 445 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Hoge Raad 9 July 2004, [2004] RvdW, 98.

    Google Scholar 

  82. See E.P.D. Engelhard, Regres. Een onderzoek naar het Regresrecht van Particulieren en Sociale Schadedragers (dissertation Maastricht University, 2003). See M. Faure/T. Hartlief (supra fn. 1), 314, no. 114.

    Google Scholar 

  83. See on these issues of extra procedural costs M. Faure/ T. Hartlief, B.C. Steininger (eds.), European Tort Law 2003 (2004) (supra fn. 1), 300–302, nos. 68–72.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Hoge Raad 26 September 2003, [2003] NJ, 645 and Hoge Raad 9 July 2004, [2004] RvdW, 96.

    Google Scholar 

  85. See M. Faure/ T. Hartlief (supra fn. 53), 321–322, nos. 30–31.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Hoge Raad 4 June 2004, [2004] RvdW, 80.

    Google Scholar 

  87. See Hoge Raad 31 October 2003, [2003] RvdW, 169 and for a detailed discussion M. Faure/T. Hartlief (supra fn. 1), 304–306, nos. 82–84.

    Google Scholar 

  88. See inter alia T. Hartlief, [2004] Ars Aequi, 266–275, J.L. Smeehuijzen, [2004] WPNR, 6572, 251–259 and P.C. Slangen, [2004] NTBR, 264–271.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Hoge Raad 20 February 2004, [2004] RvdW, 37.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Hoge Raad 26 November 2004, [2004] RvdW, 134.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Hoge Raad 23 October 1998, [2000] NJ, 15 and Hoge Raad 25 June 1999, [2000] NJ, 16 with case note by A.R. Bloembergen.

    Google Scholar 

  92. This was suggested by Attorney General De Vries Lentsch-Kostense in her opinion before Hoge Raad 17 September 2004, C03/134HR.

    Google Scholar 

  93. M. Faure/ T. Hartlief B.C. Steininger (eds.), European Tort Law 2003 (2004) (supra fn. 1), 306–307, no. 87.

    Google Scholar 

  94. J.H. Nieuwenhuis, De Romantische Rechtsschool van Maastricht (2003), 61–63.

    Google Scholar 

  95. See M. Faure/ T. Hartlief, in: Liber Amicorum Tijdschrift voor Privaatrecht en Marcel Storme (2004), 294–323.

    Google Scholar 

  96. See on these issues inter alia the recent contributions by H.B. Krans, [2004] NJB, 571–576 and MH. Wissink, [2004] AV&S, 145–156.

    Google Scholar 

  97. C.H. Sieburgh, [2003] TPR, 647–683.

    Google Scholar 

  98. C.J.H. Jansen, [2004] RM Themis, 120–126.

    Google Scholar 

  99. M.W. Scheltema & M. Scheltema, Gemeenschappelijk Recht (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  100. See J.G.C. Kamphuisen, De verzekering van aansprakelijkheid van overheden, Overheid en Aansprakelijkheid (2003), 173–180.

    Google Scholar 

  101. See in this respect the contributions of K.J. de Graaf and A.T. Marseille as well as from G.E. van Maanen in [2004] NJB, 779–784, 787–794. See also the contribution by R.J.N. Schlös-sels, ‘Van Gog/Nederweert op de helling?’, Overheid en Aansprakelijkheid (2004), 70–84.

    Google Scholar 

  102. This issue is more particularly addressed by C.L.G.P.H. Albers, Overheidsaansprakelijkheid voor gebrekkig toezicht en ontoereikende handhaving, [2004] Nederlands tijdschrift voor bestuursrecht (NTB), 201–211.

    Google Scholar 

  103. See, with special attention to the potential problems of insurability, E.J. Blom, Praktisch Procederen (2004), 67 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  104. W.H. van Boom, [2004] TVP, 1–2.

    Google Scholar 

  105. This was argued by W.J. Hengeveld/ B.M. Jonk-van Wijk (de zorgplicht van de assurantie tus-senpersoon), in: Tussen persoon en recht (2004), 107–135.

    Google Scholar 

  106. See the discussion in M. Faure/ T. Hartlief B.C. Steininger (eds.), European Tort Law 2003 (2004) (supra fn. 1), 287–288, nos. 30–32.

    Google Scholar 

  107. See particularly T. Hartlief, [2004] NTBR, 474–475, no. 31.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. METRO, Faculty of Law, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    Michael Faure

  2. University of Maastricht, Postbus 616, NL-6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    Ton Hartlief

Authors
  1. Michael Faure
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ton Hartlief
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Helmut Koziol Barbara C. Steininger

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2005 Springer-Verlag/Wien

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Faure, M., Hartlief, T. (2005). The Netherlands. In: Koziol, H., Steininger, B.C. (eds) European Tort Law 2004. Tort and Insurance Law Yearbook, vol 2004. Springer, Vienna. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-211-30875-X_22

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation