In cross-border traffic accidents in the busy port city of Rotterdam, such as on the A20 or Erasmus Bridge, the Rome II Regulation determines which law governs the amount of non-pecuniary damages and other compensations. Differences between EU countries are significant: Dutch law, applied by the District Court of Rotterdam, often provides higher non-pecuniary damage compensations than, for example, German law, which is advantageous for local victims.
Application in Practice around Rotterdam
The main rule (Article 4(1)) refers to the law of the place of the tort. An accident in Spain involving Rotterdam victims leads to Spanish law, with lower pain and suffering rates. An exception via Article 4(2) can activate Dutch law in cases of common habitual residence, ideal for Rotterdam residents with family ties abroad.
Damage items include medical costs via the Rotterdam Ikazia Hospital, loss of income for port workers, and domestic assistance. Burden of proof differs: in Anglo-Saxon influences, it lies with the tortfeasor, while continental law is stricter for victims. The District Court of Rotterdam applies strict proof requirements in personal injury cases.
Limitation periods vary; three years in the Netherlands versus two in Belgium. Courts apply Rome II strictly, as in Case C-45/13 of the CJEU, where habitual residence was decisive. Local lawyers in Rotterdam advise victims of accidents on the Westersingel or Kralingse Plas to leverage this.
Advice: Rotterdam victims must document habitual residence and place of the tort for optimal claims before the sub-district court. Insurers, such as those of Rotterdam port companies, use this in negotiations.