Predisposition in Personal Injury Law in Rotterdam

## Predisposition and the Thin Skull Rule in Rotterdam Rotterdam is a dynamic city where work-related accidents at the Port of Rotterdam, traffic collisions on busy arterial roads, and incidents in the bustling city centre are unfortunately common. When a victim in Rotterdam has a pre-existing medical condition, the question of predisposition (*predispositie*) often arises in personal injury claims. Dutch law offers strong protection to such victims through the thin skull rule. ### Understanding Predisposition in Dutch Law Predisposition means that a victim was already more vulnerable to injury or illness before the accident occurred. This could involve a herniated disc, a psychological condition such as PTSD from earlier trauma, a chronic illness like fibromyalgia, or reduced bone density. The central legal question is: does this pre-existing vulnerability reduce the liable party's obligation to compensate? Under well-established Dutch case law, the answer is a resounding no — at least as a general principle. The tortfeasor must take the victim as they find them. This is known internationally as the "eggshell skull" or "thin skull" doctrine. ### Erasmus MC and Medical Evidence in Predisposition Cases Rotterdam's world-renowned Erasmus MC University Medical Center plays an important role in many personal injury cases involving predisposition. Victims of serious accidents are often treated at Erasmus MC's trauma centre, where specialists document both acute injuries and underlying medical conditions in detail. The medical records from Erasmus MC, Maasstad Ziekenhuis, or Ikazia Ziekenhuis form the foundation of predisposition arguments. If your medical file shows you were living a normal life despite a pre-existing condition — working, exercising, socialising — this is powerful evidence that the accident, not the underlying condition, caused your current limitations. An independent medical examination (*deskundigenonderzoek*) is frequently ordered in these cases. The expert is typically asked to assess: - What complaints and limitations are attributable to the accident? - Would the pre-existing condition have caused complaints in the foreseeable future, even without the accident? - To what extent has the accident accelerated or worsened the natural course of the pre-existing condition? ### Port of Rotterdam: Workplace Injuries and Predisposition The Port of Rotterdam is one of Europe's largest and most active industrial zones. Workers in the port — from crane operators to logistics staff — face elevated physical demands and accident risks. When a port worker with a pre-existing back condition suffers a workplace injury, the employer or their insurer may argue that the back problems were inevitable. Dutch law counters this through the doctrine of employer liability under Article 7:658 of the Dutch Civil Code, combined with the thin skull rule. The employer bears a heavy burden of proof to show they met their duty of care. A pre-existing condition in the employee does not relieve the employer of responsibility for injuries sustained on the job. ### Rotterdam District Court's Approach The Rechtbank Rotterdam, located on Wilhelminaplein, regularly adjudicates personal injury cases involving predisposition. Rotterdam judges follow the established Supreme Court framework: - **Full compensation is the default.** If the victim was functioning normally before the accident, the entire damage is attributed to the liable party, regardless of any underlying vulnerability. - **Proportional deduction is the exception.** Only when there is concrete medical evidence that the pre-existing condition would have independently caused the same complaints within a foreseeable timeframe may the court reduce damages proportionally. - **The burden of proof lies with the defendant.** The insurer or liable party must demonstrate — with medical evidence — that the pre-existing condition would have led to functional limitations without the accident. Speculation is insufficient. ### Key Considerations for Accident Victims in Rotterdam If you have been involved in an accident in Rotterdam and the insurer raises your pre-existing condition as grounds for reducing your claim, consider the following: - **Document your pre-accident functioning.** Statements from your employer, colleagues, friends, and family about your activity level before the accident are invaluable. If you were working full-time at the port, cycling to work, or playing sports at a Rotterdam club, this evidence matters. - **Do not settle prematurely.** Insurers sometimes offer a quick settlement that accounts for a supposed pre-existing contribution. Without proper legal and medical analysis, you may be accepting far less than you deserve. - **Request a joint medical expert.** Under Dutch procedural law, both parties can agree on an independent medical expert. This produces a report that carries significant weight in settlement negotiations or court proceedings. - **Engage a specialist personal injury lawyer.** The interplay between medical evidence and legal principles in predisposition cases requires expertise. A Rotterdam-based personal injury lawyer understands both the local medical landscape and the approach of the Rotterdam District Court. ### Conclusion Whether your accident happened on the Erasmusbrug, in the Europoort industrial complex, or on the A16 motorway, the principle remains the same: a liable party in Rotterdam cannot reduce your compensation simply because you had a pre-existing condition. Dutch law's thin skull rule ensures that vulnerable victims receive the full protection they deserve. ### Arslan & Arslan Advocaten **Arslan & Arslan Advocaten** specializes in personal injury claims involving predisposition and complex legal cases across the Netherlands. - Website: [www.arslan.nl](https://arslan.nl) - Email: [info@arslan.nl](mailto:info@arslan.nl) - Free initial consultation - Specialists in predisposition personal injury claims