Het belang van de ‘dagelijksche practijque’ aan het Hof van Utrecht: Over de aansprakelijkheid van een vervoerder

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

48 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

In the case Harderwijk vs Hagendoorn (verdict 30 July 1810), Hagendoorn’s suitcase was stolen during its transport by Harderwijk from Austerlitz to Utrecht. The suitcase had been fixed with ropes to the coach. The question was whether the carrier had exercised sufficient care by that. Harderwijk based the level of care of his son, who had transported the suitcase, on the contract of mandate: it required normal care and thus he was not liable for a coincidence in this case. Hagendoorn, on the other hand, pointed to a more severe form of liability, namely that of a carrier in the course of his profession (quasi-delict). That implied that, so Hagendoorn said, that the carrier was liable, even if he was not at fault. He should have used material that would prevent theft. But Harderwijk argued that it was custom, viz. daily practice, that carriers in the city of Utrecht used ropes, not chains. By order of Councillor De Brueys, this practice was proven by representatives of the guild and Harderwijk’s argument was accepted. In this case, customary law set the express regulation of written law aside.
Original languageDutch
Pages (from-to)171-189
Number of pages19
JournalPro Memorie
Volume24
Issue number2
Early online date1 Dec 2022
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2022

Cite this