Burden of Proof for Poor Artificial Turf Maintenance Lies with Injured Footballer |
|
|
|
|
| Caren Schipperus,
Monday 21 April 2025 |
 |
| 123 sec |
Poor maintenance increases injury risks and may carry legal consequences
In a recent court case concerning an artificial turf field at a football club in the municipality of Middelburg, an important issue came to light: the impact of maintenance on the performance of synthetic turf pitches and the safety of players. Lawyer Caren Schipperus reports.
The case concerned a player who had sustained knee injuries on the Middelburg pitch, which he claimed were the result of poor maintenance. The municipality of Middelburg, as the owner of the field, was held liable. What practical lessons can be drawn from this?
Core of the Case
The case revolved around a player who sustained knee injuries on the Middelburg pitch, claiming they resulted from poor field maintenance. The municipality of Middelburg, as the field owner, was held liable. What practical lessons can be drawn from this?
The player suffered knee injuries in both 2017 and 2018 while playing on the artificial turf field. He alleged that the field was too hard and compacted due to insufficient maintenance. The court sought expert advice from Sportadvies Amsterdam, led by Gerrit de Koe. De Koe confirmed that a lack of infill and regular upkeep leads to degraded playing conditions. Reduced shock absorption increases the risk of injuries.
The municipality defended itself by referencing inspection reports from 2014 and 2018 by SGS INTRON, which stated the pitch met the relevant NOC*NSF and KNVB standards. Middelburg argued that maintenance had been carried out according to the guidelines and that other factors could have contributed to the injuries. However, De Koe countered that even if measurements during inspections met standards, it was uncertain whether the field would still comply two or three weeks later.
The court ruled there was no evidence that the field did not meet safety standards at the time of the injuries. It is now up to the injured player to provide proof of substandard maintenance. The case outcome is still pending, but after eight years, gathering sufficient evidence may be challenging. Nonetheless, the ruling clearly states: a field owner can be held liable if an artificial turf field does not meet standards at the moment an injury occurs.
|
|
There is no evidence that the field failed to meet standards at the time of the injuries. The injured player must provide proof.
| |
|
Key Takeaways
This case highlights several critical points for contractors and owners involved in artificial turf construction and maintenance:
Regular and proper maintenance is essential - Neglecting routine tasks like brushing fibres and replenishing infill leads to harder surfaces and increased injury risk, with possible legal implications.
Maintenance must be documented and consistent - Contractors and municipalities should not only perform maintenance but also keep detailed records. This provides legal protection and prevents disputes.
Player safety must come first - An artificial turf field must meet technical standards and be safe for athletes. While NOC*NSF and KNVB norms form the baseline, proactive maintenance can help avoid legal issues.
|
Caren Schipperus is a lawyer at ALEX Advocaten in Wijchen, specialising in environmental law, real estate law, and sustainability. She also serves as a volunteer "climate mayor" for the municipality of Wijchen, advising citizens and businesses on energy saving and climate adaptation.
|
Legal Context
On 4 September 2024, the Zeeland-West-Brabant District Court ruled in case number ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2024:6193. An amateur footballer sought damages from the municipality of Middelburg after being injured on a municipal pitch. Central to the case was the municipality's duty of care as the field owner. The player claimed the surface failed to meet safety standards, directly contributing to his injury. The municipality argued that regular maintenance had been performed and that any defect was unforeseen. The player has now been asked to provide evidence that the artificial turf was poorly maintained.
|
| LOG IN
with your email address to respond.
|
|
|
| There are no comments yet. |
Tip the editors
|
