Who bears the burden of proof in Utrecht court cases?
In Utrecht injury proceedings at the District Court Midden-Nederland, the primary burden of proof for risk discounting rests with the victim (article 150 Rv). However, the judge must investigate relevant facts ex officio (article 6:98 BW), especially in local cases involving traffic accidents on the Utrecht ring road or workplace accidents in the region. Insurers must substantiate bad risks with expert reports from Utrecht medical centers such as the UMC Utrecht.
The judgment HR 11 May 2018 (ECLI:NL:HR:2018:807) emphasizes that speculative risks do not count; only plausible scenarios apply. In Utrecht, the court often advises the appointment of experts by local forensic experts, fitting the high caseload of personal injury cases in the city.
Tips for parties in proceedings in Utrecht
Victims from Utrecht collect incident data from the Noordwest-Utrecht police and career history; insurers use probabilistic models tailored to regional labor market data. Objection to expert reports can be made via article 200 Rv at the District Court Midden-Nederland. The Court of Appeal Arnhem-Leeuwarden (for Utrecht cases) nails down binding advice, unless manifestly unreasonable.
This approach prevents trial-and-error and increases predictability in Utrecht injury cases, where local jurisprudence of the cantonal judge often prioritizes efficient settlement.