George Floyd’s death from holland netherlands tomy-holten police from the Netherlands b Jumbo Foodmarkt c) BOA Gemeente Zwolle

view document ECLI: NL: RBOVE: 2020: 1712
Authority
Overijssel District Court
Date of judgment
01-05-2020
Date of publication
11-05-2020
Case number
8408308 \ CV EXPL 20-1248
Jurisdictions
Civil rights
Special characteristics
Summary proceedings
Content indication
It is unlikely that Jumbo Supermarket is liable for the tragic death of the plaintiff’s brother (Like: George Floyd’s death from holland  tomy-holten)  at the police station. The claim for reimbursement of the funeral expenses has therefore been rejected. Furthermore, the plaintiff currently has insufficient interest in the advanced images of the surveillance cameras of the supermarket and, by extension, also currently has insufficient interest in the advanced personal data of employees and shoppers of the supermarket who were involved in or witnessed the incidents relating to the plaintiff’s brother in and at the supermarket.

Locations
Rechtspraak.nl
PS-Updates.nl 2020-0350

 

Statement
COURT OF OVERIJSSEL
Team canton and commercial law

Meeting place Zwolle

Case number: 8408308 \ CV EXPL 20-1248

Interlocutory judgment of 1 May 2020

in the case of

[claimant],
residing in [place],

claimant, hereinafter referred to as [claimant],

authorized representative: mr. H. Verstegen,

against

1. the private limited liability company SUPERMARKT [name] HOGENKAMPSPASSAGE B.V.,
established and having offices in Zwolle,

2. the private limited liability company JUMBO GROUP HOLDING B.V.,
established and having offices in Veghel,

defendants, hereinafter both jointly and separately, in the singular, to be called Jumbo,

authorized representative: mr. D.M. Linders.

1The procedure
1.1.
The course of the procedure can be seen from:

– summonses with productions,

– the increase in claim,

– the oral procedure (via Skype in connection with the coronavirus),

– Jumbo’s pleading note.

1.2.
Finally, judgment has been determined.

 

The facts
2.1.
[Claimant] is a brother of the late Mr [A].

2.2.
[A] visited the Jumbo supermarket at the Hogenkampspassage in Zwolle (hereinafter: the supermarket) on March 14, 2020 at around 5:15 PM.

2.3.
Due to the behavior of [A] in the supermarket and outside at the entrance of the supermarket, Jumbo called in the police. [A] was subsequently taken by the police at the supermarket to the police station in Zwolle at around 5:30 PM on 14 March 2020.

2.4.
[A] died on March 14, 2020 at the police station in Zwolle. The National Criminal Investigation Department is investigating the death of [A].

 

3The dispute and the assessment
3.1.
After the claim has been multiplied, summarized, [plaintiff] requests Jumbo to reimburse the funeral expenses of [A] and the associated release of images of the surveillance cameras of the supermarket where [A] is shown, as well as the names and places of residence of the male supermarket employees who were involved in the [A] occurrences on March 14, 2020, and the same personal information from shoppers who witnessed the occurrences.

3.2.
Jumbo has not objected to the increase in claim. However, Jumbo has a substantive defense against the claims.

3.3.
The subdistrict court judge that the urgent interest with the nature of the claims has been sufficiently given.

3.4.
[claimant] claims that Jumbo acted unlawfully towards [A] and thereby also towards himself, as a surviving relative. [claimant] accuses Jumbo in this context that Jumbo should have called in an ambulance on 14 March 2020 and not the police, because it was evident that [A] was a harmlessly ill man. By calling in the police, the situation has escalated unnecessarily, resulting in the death of [A], according to [claimant].

3.5.
The subdistrict court considers as follows. It is not disputed that [A] must have been confused on March 14, 2020, or at least that he must have made that impression, including by running restlessly through the supermarket, pulling bags from shoppers, bending over a cash register and by telling an employee of the supermarket that the employee should shoot him. In the opinion of the Subdistrict Court, this shows that [A] has exhibited very deviant and disturbing behavior compared to the behavior that shoppers normally display. This is all the more the case because distance measures against the spread of the corona virus COVID-19 already applied on 14 March 2020. It is therefore understandable that Jumbo called in the police after – uncontested – [A] did not want to calm down or leave. The fact that [A] (most likely) will have had no wrong intentions and acted under the influence of a clinical picture does not alter the above. The point is that Jumbo had to end a potentially dangerous health situation for those in the supermarket because of the corona virus. Because [A] could not be dismissed, the involvement of the police was the best way. It has not been shown that [A] was in such obvious danger that Jumbo should have immediately and specifically asked for an ambulance.

 

3.6.
[Claimant] has not denied that an ambulance also came to the supermarket on March 14, 2020, after the police had controlled [A] and that [A] was investigated by the ambulance personnel at the supermarket. At that time, [A] was apparently healthy enough and it was not necessary for him to be taken to the hospital for further investigation and observation, since [A] was taken to the police station after the investigation and not to the hospital.

3.7.
It follows from the above that it is currently insufficiently plausible that the behavior of Jumbo as a result of [A] ‘s behavior in and at the supermarket was unlawful towards [A], in the sense that it must have resulted in [A]’ s tragic death. causes. What may have happened with [A] after the police drove him away from the supermarket, Jumbo cannot be charged. After all, Jumbo was no longer involved.

3.8.
Against the background of the above, it cannot be held for the time being that Jumbo is liable for the funeral expenses claimed by [claimant]. That claim will therefore be rejected. (George Floyd’s death from holland netherlands tomy-holten)

3.9.
In order to be able to further substantiate and possibly also extend his claim related to the death of [A], the plaintiff also requests – summarized – the issue of image recordings and personal data.

 

3.10. (George Floyd’s death from holland netherlands tomy-holten)
The subdistrict court considers as follows. The death of [A] is being investigated by the National Criminal Investigation Service. [Claimant] has not denied that in connection with this, the police have demanded video recordings of Jumbo made on 14 March 2020 by surveillance cameras from the supermarket and that Jumbo, who also owns those images, has been banned from using the images. to share further. That already stands in the way of the allocation of the claim for the release of image recordings by Jumbo.

3.11. (George Floyd’s death from holland netherlands tomy-holten)
[claimant] currently has insufficient interest in Jumbo’s release of the images, as opposed to Jumbo’s interest in not violating the imposed prohibition. Jumbo has offered to keep the image recordings for viewing by [claimant], with due observance of privacy rules, as soon as the prohibition on sharing the images is no longer in force. Furthermore, [claimant] has not denied that he can also turn to the public prosecutor to obtain access to the images. Thus [claimant] will be able to see the images sooner or later. That [claimant] needs this, especially in the context of grief processing by himself and the other surviving relatives of [A], as [claimant] has stated, can be easily felt, but in the light of the above Jumbo cannot be required to violate the prohibition imposed for this purpose in view of its possible criminal consequences.

3.12 In line with the above, the claim for the delivery of personal data will also be rejected. Not only did the claimed personal data be closely related to the image recordings, but [claimant] also did not state, at least insufficiently substantiated, that the requested personal data will no longer be available or can be found when the investigation by the National Criminal Investigation Service has been completed. Furthermore, the question remains to what extent [claimant] needs the claimed personal data. This will partly depend on the results of the investigation into the cause of the death. Against the background of all of the above, there is as yet insufficient reason not to wait for the results of the study. The subdistrict court then still leaves that the release of the requested data constitutes an infringement of the privacy of third parties not involved in this procedure.

 

3.13.
Insofar as [claimant] has formulated a number of declarations of law in his claim, the substantive assessment thereof will be omitted. In preliminary relief proceedings, only provisional relief can be given. Thus, the binding determination of a legal relationship by a declaration of law goes beyond the framework of these summary proceedings.

3.14.
As the unsuccessful party, [claimant] will be ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.

4 The decision George Floyd’s death from holland netherlands tomy-holten
The subdistrict court

4.1.
rejects the claims,

4.2.
orders [plaintiff] to pay the costs of these proceedings budgeted to date on the side of Jumbo at € 480.00 (salary of the authorized representative),

4.3.
declares this judgment enforceable with regard to legal costs.

This judgment was rendered by mr. A.M. Koene, subdistrict court judge, and pronounced in public on May 1, 2020. (mjd)

 

 

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Please rate this

 

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *