What does discounting good and bad chances mean in Amsterdam cases?
In Amsterdam personal injury cases, 'discounting good and bad chances' is essential when calculating compensation. This principle takes account of future uncertainties for the victim. Judges and insurers in Amsterdam weigh what realistically would have happened without the accident, especially in a dynamic city like Amsterdam with diverse occupations.
In cases of loss of earning capacity, this is crucial: would the victim in Amsterdam have become unemployed due to the labour market without the accident? Or could they have been promoted in a growth sector such as tech or tourism?
Legal framework: statutory basis in Dutch case law
The foundation lies in Article 6:98 of the Dutch Civil Code, under which the judge estimates the damage based on its nature. Article 6:97 of the Dutch Civil Code also plays a role, for past and future loss of profits. The Supreme Court confirmed this in judgments such as HR 5 March 2004 (ECLI:NL:HR:2004:AM9069), in which investigation into chances ex officio is mandatory. Amsterdam district courts apply this strictly.
Application to earning capacity in Amsterdam
In income loss, the 'hypothetical' (without accident) and 'actual' situations are compared. In Amsterdam, local factors count, such as the overheated housing market or flex contracts in hospitality.
Bad chances: risks even without the accident?
Bad chances reduce the compensation, because income might have fallen away anyway. Amsterdam examples:
- Prior health complaints: A back problem that later caused incapacity for work?
- Market fluctuations: Work in shrinking sectors such as traditional retail?
- Age effects: Close to state pension age in a demanding city?
- Flexible jobs: Temp work without a permanent contract in Amsterdam?
This results in a discount on the benefit.
Good chances: missed opportunities due to the accident?
Good chances increase the damage, given missed growth. In Amsterdam:
- Promotion: On the way to management in finance?
- Income increase: Annual collective bargaining agreement raises?
- Reorientation: Training for tech or creative sector?
- Self-employed: Startup in Amsterdam's Zuidas or creative hub?
This leads to higher compensation.
Burden of proof and probability in practice
Victims prove good chances; insurers prove bad chances. Judges use 'reasonable probability', with estimates from 10-90%. Amsterdam cases show variable percentages.
| Type of chance | Effect | Burden of proof | Amsterdam examples |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bad chance | Discount | Insurer | Health issues, flex market, economic cycle |
| Good chance | Increase | Victim | Promotion, startups, sector switch |
| Neutral | No adjustment | - | Permanent job in stable industry |
Help in Amsterdam
For advice: District Court Amsterdam, Parnassusweg 220 or Legal Aid Office Amsterdam, Vijzelstraat 77. They assist with local personal injury cases involving chance discounting.