Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Vesiylioikeus 24.9.1991 175/1991 AI generated

Construction permit holder not liable for municipal water main freezing damages under Finnish Water Act.

Case Number Vesiylioikeus 24.9.1991 175/1991
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Administrative Court dismissed compensation claims against a construction permit holder for costs incurred to prevent water main freezing and subsequent cleanup. Although the land was connected to the municipal network and the holder paid connection fees, the court found no liability for the municipality's specific work. The decision rests on the statutory separation of responsibilities between the permit holder and the municipality regarding infrastructure maintenance.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

VesiL 11 luku 12 § 1 mom; A construction permit holder is not liable for damages arising from the municipality's water main freezing and repair work when the land is connected to the municipal network and the holder has paid the connection fee.

Keywords

AI generated
Finnish Water Act construction permit holder municipal water main liittymismaksu liittymävelvollisuus vesihuoltovelvollisuus liittymäverkkoon

Cited Legislation

AI generated
VesiL 11 luku 12 § 1 mom
VesiL 11 luku 12 § 1 mom
AI generated
kko-precedent_1991_12
Supreme Court allows conviction for water law violation due to operating without valid permit.
admin_1993_water-superior__22
Administrative court dismissed appeal regarding water diversion license and compensation under Water Act provisions.
admin_1995_water-superior__201
Administrative court dismissed appeal for failure to hear parties on hearing report under Water Act.
admin_1991_water-superior__223
Administrative court quashes water authority's dismissal of old damage claims, ruling they must be heard as separate disputes.
kko-other_2012_202
Supreme Court dismisses appeal withdrawal objection, ruling withdrawal does not automatically suspend oral hearing proceedings.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Voimalaitoksen rakentamisluvansaajan katsottiin täyttäneen

valittajien tilan vedensaannin vaikeutumisesta johtuneen vesihuoltovelvoitteensa,

kun tila oli luvansaajan ja kunnan välisin

sopimuksin liitetty vesijohtoverkkoon ja luvansaaja oli

maksanut liittymismaksun. Lopputarkastuksessa esitetyt korvausvaatimukset

vesijohdon jäätymisen estämiseksi tehdyistä

töistä sekä vesijohtotyön jälkisiivouksesta johtuneista kustannuksista

hylättiin vesioikeudessa ja vesiylioikeudessa,

koska luvansaaja ei ollut vastuussa kunnan vesijohtotöistä

eikä niistä johtuvista vahingoista.

VesiL 11 luku 12 § 1 mom

Lainvoimainen