Terug naar Encyclopedie
Letselschade

Condicio sine qua non in personal injury cases in Utrecht: Factual and legal boundaries of the 'but-for' test

Explanation of condicio sine qua non in Utrecht personal injury cases: when is your claim causality-test-proof at the District Court of Midden-Nederland?

2 min leestijd

Condicio sine qua non in personal injury cases in Utrecht: the 'but-for-the-accident'-test

Condicio sine qua non means 'condition without which not'. In Utrecht personal injury cases at the District Court of Midden-Nederland (Vrouwe Justitiaplein 1), a claim is only upheld if the injury would not have occurred without the accident. This causality test is essential. Failure often results in denial of compensation, even with proven damage.

What does condicio sine qua non entail?

This test checks whether the accident is the actual cause of the injury. Judges in Utrecht ask: Would the victim have suffered the injury without the accident? If 'yes', the test fails. Based on Supreme Court rulings such as HR 17 December 1965, NJ 1966/216, direct causality is required for compensation.

Practical example in Utrecht

Case: Lisa trips on an uneven sidewalk in Utrecht city center and breaks her wrist. Medical evidence shows prior osteoporosis. Question: would the fracture have occurred without the fall?

  • Not satisfied: If osteoporosis would have caused a fracture within months, the accident is not the unique cause; compensation limited or denied by the District Court of Midden-Nederland.
  • Satisfied: Without osteoporosis influence, the fall is the direct cause; full damage compensation possible.

Difference with adequate causality

Unlike adequate causality, condicio sine qua non focuses on factual uniqueness, adequate causality on normal predictability.

TestDefinitionUtrecht example
Condicio sine qua nonAccident is the sole cause.Bike accident on Oudegracht causes fracture in fit person.
Adequate causalityNormal consequence.Tram accident in Utrecht leads to PTSD in vulnerable person.

Legal basis in Utrecht

Not literally in the law, but standard in the case law of the District Court of Midden-Nederland. Key articles:

  • Art. 6:101 BW: Liability for direct damage.
  • Art. 6:162 BW: Compensation for direct injury cause.
  • Supreme Court rulings: HR 17 December 1965 and more recent ones, applied locally.

Consult the Juridisch Loket Utrecht (Catharijnesingel 55) for free advice on your case.

Application at the District Court of Midden-Nederland

Location: Vrouwe Justitiaplein 1, Utrecht. Judges apply a strict 'but-for-the-accident' test, often with medical expert evidence. Success depends on proof that the injury resulted exclusively from the accident.