The Kelderluik Case
The Kelderluik case is an iconic Supreme Court ruling from 1968 that sets out the rules for liability arising from defective buildings, with direct relevance for Amsterdam residents. A passerby tripped over an open cellar hatch in the capital city and suffered serious injuries. The Supreme Court held the owner liable under strict liability, without requiring proof of fault. This ruling forms the cornerstone for personal injury claims in Amsterdam involving trips and falls, essential for victims seeking to recover their damages from owners or the Municipality of Amsterdam.
What is the Kelderluik Case?
The Kelderluik case, formally the Supreme Court judgment of 5 November 1968 (NJ 1969/10), concerned an accident in central Amsterdam. A 14-year-old boy fell through an open cellar hatch left by a shopkeeper for deliveries, without any barriers or warnings. With a broken leg, he claimed compensation. The Supreme Court ruled that the owner was liable due to a defect in the building setup that posed an abnormal risk to pedestrians in the bustling city.
This ruling established strict liability for defective structures. Rather than investigating fault (as in unlawful act claims), it focuses on the objective danger posed by the defect. This simplifies claims for Amsterdam residents in slip-and-fall accidents, often linked to crowded sidewalks or stairs. It ties into local issues such as slips and falls in the canal city, where poor maintenance affects pedestrians.
Essence: a building or part thereof is defective if it lacks expected qualities, resulting in damage. This covers not only hatches but also Amsterdam's stairs, railings, and sidewalks.
Legal Basis
The Kelderluik case is codified in the Dutch Civil Code (DCC), Book 6, Title 3, Section 5, particularly Article 6:174 DCC: "The possessor of a building or other structure is liable for damage to third parties caused by a defect therein." This follows the ruling and constitutes strict liability: no negligence required, the defect suffices.
Article 6:175 DCC defines a defect as a deviation from reasonable expectations, suited to its purpose. Think of open hatches without signs, slippery floors, or unstable railings in Amsterdam properties. The possessor (owner or tenant) bears responsibility, except in cases of force majeure or the victim's own fault (art. 6:101 DCC).
In practice, this is linked to Article 6:162 DCC (unlawful act) in negligence cases, but the ruling provides a stricter standard. Cases like the Painter's Case (Supreme Court 1994) expanded it, yet for Amsterdam real estate, it remains leading.
Practical Examples in Amsterdam
The Kelderluik case features daily in Amsterdam personal injury claims. Suppose you trip on a broken manhole cover on a sidewalk in the Jordaan. The Municipality of Amsterdam, as possessor, is liable under Article 6:174 DCC due to the defect. Claim medical costs, lost income, and pain and suffering without proving negligence.
Or: in an Amsterdam apartment building, a resident slips on a wet stair without anti-slip measures. If the owners' association fails to act, the ruling applies. Courts assess against NEN standards (e.g., NEN 3215). In a 2022 District Court of Amsterdam case, a victim received €25,000 after a fall due to a defective balcony railing.
For business owners: when opening a cellar hatch in your Amsterdam shop, secure it with barriers and signs. Otherwise, liability looms, as in the ruling.
Rights and Obligations in Amsterdam
As a victim of a fall due to a defect, you can claim full compensation, such as:
- Medical costs: hospital and therapy.
- Lost income: wages lost.
- Pain and suffering: €1,000-€50,000 for distress.
- Other: assistance or travel expenses.
The possessor must maintain and repair (Article 6:174(2) DCC). The burden of proof for no liability lies with them. Limitation period: 5 years (Article 3:310 DCC) from knowledge of the defect and damage. Report to police, take photos, and consult the Juridisch Loket Amsterdam for free advice.
Comparison with Other Liability Grounds
| Liability Type | Basis | Proof Required | Amsterdam Example |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strict Liability (Kelderluik) | Art. 6:174 DCC | Defect in setup | Fall through open hatch in Jordaan |
| Unlawful Act | Art. 6:162 DCC | Fault/negligence | Slippery floor from not mopping |
| Municipal Liability | Art. 6:174 DCC | Defect in sidewalk/road | Broken manhole cover on Dam Square |
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat is mijn retourrecht?
Bij online aankopen heb je 14 dagen retourrecht zonder opgaaf van reden, tenzij de wettelijke uitzonderingen gelden.
Hoe lang geldt de wettelijke garantie?
Goederen moeten minimaal 2 jaar meewerken. Defecten die binnen 6 maanden ontstaan worden verondersteld al aanwezig te zijn.
Kan ik rente eisen over schulden?
Ja, je kunt wettelijke rente eisen (momenteel ongeveer 8% per jaar) over het openstaande bedrag.
Wat kan ik doen tegen oneerlijke handelspraktijken?
Je kunt klacht indienen bij de consumentenbond, de overheid of naar de rechter gaan.
Wat is een kredietovereenkomst?
Een kredietovereenkomst regelt hoe je geld leent, wat de rente is, en hoe je dit terugbetaalt.