Reinier advises national and international companies
reinier.russell@russell.nl +31 20 301 55 55Charities may be liable for accidents that happen to volunteers during their work. However, there are limits to this, as the Supreme Court ruled on 24 December 2021. What are these limits?

A beautifully lit Christmas tree in a village brings even more Christmas atmosphere to a dark winter. This was also the opinion of the village council of Hunsel in Limburg. It therefore decided to take on the responsibility of placing the tree itself when the municipality stopped this tradition in 2011. The village council entrusted the placing of the tree to the Speelruimte Foundation, that ran the local playground.
In 2013, things went completely wrong. The six-metre Christmas tree stood in a front garden and had yet to be cut down by the foundation’s volunteers. To prevent damage to house, fence and garden shed, a rope had to be attached to the tree. An aerial work platform had been brought along for this purpose, but it did not fit in the small garden. A ladder was still in the playground, over 600 metres away. Moreover, it had started to rain. Thus, an eager volunteer climbed the tree himself to attach the rope. However at 3.5 metres, he fell from the tree onto the garden shed and suffered paraplegia.
Is the volunteer entitled to damages? Or is he the victim of his own initiative?
According to the District Court, the volunteer had to pay for his damage. He therefore lodged an appeal. In the appeal, he held the Speelruimte Foundation liable as the commissioning party. According to the Court of Appeal, however, the foundation had not given any assignment to the volunteers. After all, the victim was free not to participate in the Christmas action. In addition, the volunteers had divided the tasks on their own initiative. And that own initiative was precisely what had led to the accident. Therefore, there was no question of invoking employer’s liability, whereby the employer is in principle liable for accidents at work.
Still, the foundation was liable. It knew that a six-metre Christmas tree had to be cut down. It is obvious that this can cause danger, especially, in a crowded, small garden. That the volunteers did not have the necessary qualifications for the job is also clear. Therefore, the foundation had a duty of care and it had not fulfilled this duty. The fact that the foundation itself also consisted of volunteers did not change this. It should have given directions, which it did not do. The correct materials were also missing: the aerial work platform did not fit in the garden and the ladder was still in the playground.
However, the volunteer was also to blame. He had climbed the tree on his own initiative, because he did not want to wait for the ladder to be fetched due to the rain. In the end, this led to the judgment that the Speelruimte Foundation was liable for 75% and the unfortunate volunteer for 25%.
The ruling of the Court of Appeal was confirmed in cassation by the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, without explanation. However, in his advice to the Supreme Court the Advocate-General did summarize in what situations the statutory regulation for employer’s liability applies to commissioning parties of volunteers:
All three of these conditions must be met. In addition, normal liability also applies when working with volunteers. But the threshold for this is higher than for employer’s liability.
Are you a director of an organisation with volunteers and is your organisation held liable? Or are you yourself held liable as a director and are looking for legal assistance? We have extensive experience in supporting charities and will be happy to assist you. Please contact:
Under the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (Prevention) Act (Wwft), banks may be obliged to refuse a customer or terminate their relationship with them. This can also happen to charities. When is a bank permitted to terminate the relationship? And must a customer cooperate with a bank’s investigation?
The Transparency and Countering Undermining by Civil Society Organisations Act (Wtmo) imposed a number of new obligations on charities in the Netherlands. However, the Act has been rejected by the Dutch Senate on 24 March 2026 and will not enter into force.
Statutory directors enjoy less protection against dismissal, but there must still be reasonable grounds for the dismissal. Otherwise, the employer must pay fair compensation. This can be substantial, as a recent ruling has shown. Why was the employer required to pay this compensation?
The European AI Act requires employers to ensure that employees have sufficient knowledge of AI systems. This can be achieved through training, but also through an AI policy tailored to the company. What should you include in such a policy? What role does the works council play in the implementation of the AI policy?
Reinier W.L. Russell, LL.M. has published an article on The benefits of a works council for entrepreneurs in the “Off the record” section of Primerus Weekly on March 3, 2026. Below you will find the text of this article.
Employees who are underperforming may be dismissed. However, they must first be given the opportunity to improve their performance through a performance improvement plan (PIP). What requirements must such a plan meet?