Who bears the burden of proof in Amsterdam courts?
In Amsterdam personal injury cases at the Amsterdam District Court, the primary burden of proof for discounting probabilities rests with the victim (article 150 Rv). However, the judge investigates relevant facts ex officio (article 6:98 BW), especially in complex bicycle accidents or tram incidents typical of the city. Insurers must substantiate adverse probabilities with expert reports, taking into account Amsterdam's traffic congestion and medical facilities such as the AMC.
The Supreme Court ruling of 11 May 2018 (ECLI:NL:HR:2018:807) emphasizes that speculative probabilities do not count; only plausible scenarios, such as rehabilitation in local physiotherapy practices. The Amsterdam District Court often advises procedurally the appointment of experts by the Judicial Medical Laboratory.
Tips for parties in proceedings in Amsterdam
Victims from Amsterdam collect incident data from the Noord-Holland police and career history; insurers use probabilistic models tailored to urban labor markets such as in the Zuidas. Objection to expert reports can be made via article 200 Rv at the Amsterdam District Court. The Amsterdam Court of Appeal nails down binding advice, unless manifestly unreasonable, and encourages mediation through local Young Bar Association initiatives.
These rules prevent trial-and-error and increase predictability in Amsterdam personal injury proceedings, where bike paths and canals bring specific risks.