Photo: MrFenwick

Summer has finally begun. On the occasion I cycled to Hoek van Holland. Unsurprisingly, this seaside village, which literally translates as ‘Corner of Holland’, owes its name to its location at the estuary of the Nieuwe Waterweg, the seaway of the Rotterdam port. A concrete pier makes it possible to walk between the seaway and North Sea. Within a stone’s throw large container ships, bulk carriers and the ferry to Hull pass by, towering high above the pier.

The pier is popular with fishing enthusiasts in particular. Some have set up their fishing rods on the pier. Others have climbed onto the concrete blocks keeping the pier in place, to cast their fishing lines. Fishing is not without danger, though. Even on a nice summer’s day, with a calm sea, one should be on guard. Waves, caused by passing vessels, can suddenly wash over the pier. Last year, a local television channel reported that three people fishing were surprised by such a surging wave and were washed away dozens of meters.

According to the report, authorities have pointed out that signs are supposed to sufficiently warn visitors to the pier and that anyone entering the pier is responsible for his own safety first. Indeed signs on gates at the entrance to the pier do indicate that entering the pier is at one’s own risk. A picture shows a large vessel causing a large wave next to the pier and the text ‘dangerous waves due to shipping traffic’. Halfway along the pier, the warning is repeated, with the addition ‘even during good weather’.

When is a warning ‘sufficient’? On the other side of the ocean, a woman standing on Maho Beach, Sint Maarten, was blown against the rocks by the ‘jetblast’ of a departing aircraft. She claimed damages, asserting that the sign on the gate separating the runway from the beach, indicating ‘Warning! Low flying and departing aircraft blast can cause physical injury’, did not suffice as a warning. The Court of Justice of the Netherlands Antilles decided that, given the sign, the woman could be informed of the danger. The Dutch Supreme Court, however, quashed this decision and decided that for a warning to suffice as a measure to protect against a certain danger it should be such that it can be expected to result in behaviour avoiding this danger. In view of this decision, the Court of Justice eventually decided that the Maho Beach warning sign was insufficient. It considered that given the fact that experience showed that the warning was likely not to be noted, the warning was not very probing and clear, while the consequences of a potential accident could be severe.

Whether the Hoek van Holland warning signs are sufficient thus remains to be seen. They warn of dangerous waves due to shipping traffic, pictured next to the pier, but not of the danger that these waves may actually wash away someone standing on the pier, possibly resulting in serious or even fatal injury. Having said that, one should keep in mind that the answer to this question eventually depends upon the exact circumstances of each case including, of course, the behaviour of and the degree of caution taken into account by the victim.