Liability for damage as a landlord

Questioner

Dear lawyers, I am renting out a building that is divided into multiple floors. On the ground floor there is a retail space that is currently rented out. The tenant also has a shop open here. The case: an employee of the tenant has fallen through the floor and injured his shoulder (bruise or fracture). This person wants compensation from me. Am I liable for this or obliged to do so? Or is there insurance that covers me for this? What are my rights and obligations? Any help is greatly appreciated.

Lawyer

The rule is that one is responsible for one's own damage and actions unless another has made a demonstrable mistake or because the law states that the other can be held liable. What caused the employee to fall through the floor?

Questioner

Thank you very much for your quick response, Mrs. Ferwerda. The employee fell through the floor because the support beams are rotting. I was not aware of this. The beams were last replaced ten years ago. Have I made a demonstrable mistake here as a landlord, or is the tenant, or rather the employee in this case, liable?

Lawyer

In that case, the owner of a building that does not meet the requirements that may be set for it can be held liable if he would not have had a valid reason if he had known of the defect. In other words, this concerns a risk liability and in principle that is difficult to deflect with a force majeure defense (because that is what it comes down to). The most important question here is should you have taken sufficient measures to guarantee the safety of the people who work there? Relevant legal text Article 164BW http://www.wetboek-online.nl/wet/BW6.html#510 It must be investigated whether or not the requirements of paragraph 1 have been met, among other things. 'The owner of a building that does not meet the requirements that may be imposed on it in the given circumstances, and which therefore poses a danger to persons or property, is liable when this danger materialises, unless liability under the previous section would not have been incurred if he had been aware of this danger at the time it arose.'