Employer liability for occupational illness: what does the Supreme Court's ruling of 12 June 2026 mean for SMEs?

Employment Law

1 July 2026

Employer liability for occupational illness: what does the Supreme Court’s ruling of 12 June 2026 mean for SMEs?

Stelt u zich eens voor: u werkt al jaren met dezelfde zelfstandige. Hij stuurt facturen, factureert btw en heeft een eigen kvk-nummer. Toch krijgt u in 2026 ineens vragen van de Belastingdienst over de aard van uw samenwerking. Hoe heeft het zo ver kunnen komen?

Repetitive Strain Injury, better known as RSI, is one of the best-known occupational illnesses in the Netherlands, but it is certainly not the only one. On 12 June 2026, in an RSI case, the Supreme Court confirmed that an employer can be liable for an employee’s occupational illness — even if that employee has a congenital condition. That ruling doesn’t only affect employers in office environments. Any SME employer thinking about their liability risks would do well to look at the broader picture of occupational illnesses.

The case: RSI as the starting point

On 12 June 2026, the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal by EBN B.V. (ECLI:NL:HR:2026:910). The employee had developed RSI complaints as a result of his working conditions and held his employer liable under article 7:658 of the Dutch Civil Code. EBN argued that there was no causal link, partly because the employee suffered from a congenital condition. The Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal had rejected that defence (ECLI:NL:GHARL:2025:281), and the Supreme Court left that ruling unchanged without further reasoning, under article 81 paragraph 1 of the Judiciary (Organisation) Act. That means: there were no legal questions requiring further explanation. The law on this point is clear enough.

The legal framework: article 7:658 of the Dutch Civil Code

Article 7:658 of the Dutch Civil Code obliges the employer to provide a safe working environment. The burden of proof is heavy for employers: as soon as the employee shows that he suffered damage in the course of performing his work, the employer must prove that it complied with its duty of care. If it fails to do so, liability is in principle a given.
With RSI — but equally with other occupational illnesses — so-called multicausality plays a central role. Complaints rarely arise from a single cause. A weak constitution, personal factors or a congenital condition can play a role. However, the Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed that this does not release the employer: even someone who employs a vulnerable employee remains responsible for preventing or limiting damage that is triggered or aggravated by the working conditions.

RSI is not the only occupational illness

RSI deserves attention, but is only one category within the broader spectrum of occupational illnesses for which employers can be held liable. Other examples that regularly lead to liability proceedings in practice include hearing damage from prolonged exposure to noise — relevant for employers in construction, industry or hospitality — lung conditions from exposure to dust, asbestos or chemical substances, skin conditions from contact with irritant or allergenic substances, and psychological occupational illnesses such as burnout caused by structurally excessive work pressure. In all these cases the legal logic is the same: duty of care, proof of compliance, and, in its absence, liability.
This is especially relevant for SMEs because the risks differ greatly per sector. An accounting firm mainly deals with display-screen risks; a painting company with solvents and dust; a hospitality entrepreneur with noise, physical strain and work pressure. The specific nature of your business operations determines which occupational-illness risks you should map out first.
Prevention is better than litigation. Would you like to know whether your organisation complies with the statutory duty of care, or do you have questions about employer liability for occupational illnesses? Then contact the corporate lawyers of The Legal Company via info@thelegalcompany.nl or 020-345 0152.

Blog by our employment law expert Bente Brouwer LL.M.

De afgelopen jaren stonden in het teken van de Wet VBAR, het wetsvoorstel dat een einde moest maken aan onduidelijkheid over de zzp’er. Het kabinet heeft delen van dat voorstel inmiddels geschrapt. Op het eerste gezicht is dat goed nieuws: minder regels, minder administratieve last. Maar in de praktijk blijven dezelfde toetsen overeind.

“De inhoud van de samenwerking is leidend, niet wat er op papier staat.”

De Belastingdienst handhaaft sinds 1 januari 2025 weer actief op schijnzelfstandigheid. En recente uitspraken van de Hoge Raad bevestigen dat rechters strikt toetsen of er sprake is van ondergeschiktheid en gezagsverhouding.

Voor uw praktijk betekent dit drie dingen. Een: leg de samenwerking duidelijk vast, met aandacht voor de inhoud. Twee: voorkom dat een zzp’er feitelijk werkt als werknemer. Drie: wees voorbereid op een controle, en weet hoe u de relatie kunt herzien als dat moet.

Heeft u vragen over uw concrete situatie? Wij sparren dagelijks met opdrachtgevers over hun zzp-relaties. Vraag een offerte op of bekijk onze Legal Safe abonnementen.