Terug naar Encyclopedie
Letselschade

Condicio sine qua non in personal injury cases in Zoetermeer: Factual and legal boundaries of the 'but-for-the-accident' test

Explanation of condicio sine qua non in personal injury cases in Zoetermeer: the 'but-for-the-accident' test according to District Court of The Hague and Supreme Court case law.

3 min leestijd

Condicio sine qua non in personal injury cases in Zoetermeer: the 'but-for-the-accident' test

Condicio sine qua non is a Latin term meaning 'condition without which not'. In personal injury case law around Zoetermeer, handled by the District Court of The Hague, a damages claim is only awarded if the injury would not have occurred without the accident. This test is essential for establishing causality. At the District Court of The Hague (Zoetermeer district), a claim may be rejected if the condicio sine qua non is not satisfied, even in cases of demonstrable damage.

What does condicio sine qua non entail for Zoetermeer?

The condicio sine qua non test checks whether the accident is the actual cause of the injury. Judges in The Hague pose the question: Would the victim in Zoetermeer have sustained the injury without the accident? If yes, the claim for compensation lapses. This doctrine stems from Supreme Court rulings, such as HR 17 December 1965, NJ 1966/216, and is applied locally in cases before the District Court of The Hague.

In Zoetermeer, organisations such as the Zoetermeer Legal Aid Office advise victims on this test. They emphasise that evidence, such as medical reports, is crucial.

Practical example in Zoetermeer

Situation: A cyclist in Zoetermeer falls due to a loose paving stone and breaks their wrist. Medical examination reveals pre-existing osteoporosis. Question: would the fracture have occurred without the fall?

  • Yes, test not satisfied: If there is a high fracture risk due to osteoporosis in the foreseeable future, the accident is not deemed the unique cause. Compensation may be reduced at the District Court of The Hague.
  • No, test satisfied: If the fall was the direct trigger, full compensation follows.

Difference from adequate causation

The condicio sine qua non differs from adequate causation (see here). The former is factual; the latter is legal and assesses normal foreseeability.

TestDefinitionZoetermeer Example
Condicio sine qua nonAccident is the sole cause.Fall due to slippery road surface causes fracture in fit person.
Adequate causationNormal consequence.Slip leads to PTSD in person with trauma history.

Statutory basis in Dutch and Zoetermeer context

The test is not explicitly stated in the law, but derives from case law and is applied by the District Court of The Hague.

  • Art. 6:101 BW: Claim for direct damage due to unlawful act.
  • Art. 6:162 BW: Compensation for direct cause of injury.
  • Supreme Court rulings: Such as HR 17 December 1965, relevant for local cases.

Victims in Zoetermeer can obtain free advice from the Zoetermeer Legal Aid Office on building causation evidence.

Application at District Court of The Hague (Zoetermeer)

The court applies a strict 'but-for-the-accident' test. In recent cases involving traffic accidents in Zoetermeer, compensation was denied where pre-existing conditions independently caused the injury. Expert evidence is key.

Help in Zoetermeer

Consult the Zoetermeer Legal Aid Office for free support or a personal injury lawyer specialised in District Court of The Hague cases. They assist with medical causation and claims.