The security measure referred p800 to by [the father], placing fences or not fitted with barrier ta

Girl 9 years climbs to three-meter high container intended for storage of building materials, which has been placed. Courtside associated with renovations in the district When the container jump / glide she walks injury. Contractor who placed the container liable under Article 6:173 Civil Code and Article 6: 162 BW. Kelderluik Criteria and Wilnis p800 Judgment.
It must be considered that young children in and around the age of [minor daughter] at the time, playful and curious. As a given Of vigilance and care of young children in question may at their game and can not be assumed.
If there are containers are placed next to the only court in the district is obvious that these containers attract the attention of children playing. If a container, such as the present, also another fairly easy to climb, it must take into account the chance that referred playful and curious children will climb, indeed that container p800 or goods are there now or not. Account
Should be based on the information p800 provided by originating summons images that climb down considerably from the present three-meter high container p800 is less easy, or so children on top of the container stand or sit thus will experience. Adopted It is therefore obvious that children referred off will try to jump or slide, as in this case happened thereof. The chance that this leads to accidents and that the nature of such an accident can be severe, given the height of the container to experience rules by no means imaginary.
The security measure referred p800 to by [the father], placing fences or not fitted with barrier tape and / or warning, p800 would an obvious and non-burdensome measure have been. On the basis of the information provided by originating summons images p800 is that multiple containers in the fenced off area were provided, although the reason for this was another. [Construction company] had simple and relatively low cost also to the container p800 post. (S) at the playing field fencing It has the opposite is not stated.
Argument [construction company] that children can climb a fence is not convincing. Placed a fence, whether or not fitted with barrier tape and / or a warning sign would also like young children [underage daughter] made that it was not the intention that they would find. Located in or on the container clearly Whether [underage daughter] p800 by actually would have to restrain themselves there and whether p800 the accident would have been prevented thus can not be answered, but it seems plausible. Could jump or fall awkwardly out is irrelevant. The assessment of the case on a trellis that children (or other high object) As indicated above, the placement of a fence would have produce, let the container would not be climbed by children, but in any case, would there have been, which would also be considered a warning one to overcome additional p800 obstacles no guarantee, in could be that [construction company] was all that could reasonably be expected of her to prevent an accident p800 like this had taken. than said at least
The fact that [construction company] had to place the container on the playing field a permit from the municipality does not exonerate it. The mere fact that after the accident engaged police and labor [construction company] have led to the adoption of (safety) measures, no job other than the removal of the goods that were on the container, can not lead to the conclusion that [Construction company ] is not liable. The assessment in this civil proceedings is another.
Is not relevant or is rather an accident with a container has occurred. It is a question of whether there is objectified unfamiliarity of [construction company] with the possibility that could occur if a child [infant daughter] would climb the container, and then would jump or slide. Of the danger That is - see also the above considerations - alleged nor proven.
The foregoing leads to the conclusion that the particular container, given all the circumstances discussed above, a defective p800 good within the meaning of Article 6: 173 BW yields. The foregoing also leads to the conclusion that [construction company] has called a gevaarzettende situation in life by placing no fencing around the container and has to subsist on which it has acted negligently and liability within the meaning of Article 6: 162 BW .
[The father] has in the first instance a number of pieces in the proceedings brought by originating summons and by letter dated August 30, 2011 the court