Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Vesiylioikeus 8.5.1992 96/1992 AI generated

Court held that water law rules apply to channel damage instead of general tort law when excavation exceeds prior size.

Case Number Vesiylioikeus 8.5.1992 96/1992
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Administrative Court ruled that the Water Act governs compensation for channel damage rather than the general Act on Damages. The excavators significantly enlarged a field channel without the landowner's consent or Water Services Agency approval, violating Section 12 of Chapter 6 of the Water Act. Since the excavation followed the method prescribed in Section 4 of the same chapter, the court determined the specific water law provisions were the exclusive basis for liability.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

VesiL 6 luku 4 §; VesiL 6 luku 12 §: When a water channel is excavated in a manner prescribed by the Water Act but without the landowner's consent or required permit, compensation is governed by the Water Act rather than the general Act on Damages.

Keywords

AI generated
Water Act Chapter 6 channel excavation compensation liability landowner consent administrative court ruling statutory interpretation tort law distinction

Cited Legislation

AI generated
VesiL 6 luku 4 §
VesiL 6 luku 6 §
VesiL 6 luku 12 §
VesiL 11 luku 20 §
AI generated
kko-precedent_1995_108
Supreme Court holds fuel station operator liable for pollution damages regardless of fault and insurer must pay.
kko-precedent_2003_102
HD:2003:102
appeal_1979_eastern-finland__1934
Court dismissed damages claim against official for clerical error, citing state liability rules requiring prior exhaustion of state remedies.
kko-precedent_1995_129
Supreme Court reduces damages for cable damage where natural conditions contributed to the accident alongside negligence.
appeal_1979_eastern-finland__1646
Court dismissed damages claim for non-pecuniary loss due to lack of statutory basis in Finnish law.

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

Koska ojan perkaajat olivat kaivaneet toisen maalla olevan

ojan aikaisempaa olennaisesti suuremmaksi, ojitukseen ei olisi

saanut vesilain 6 luvun 12 §:n mukaan ryhtyä ilman maanomistajan

suostumusta tai YSL:n lupaa. Perkaus oli kuitenkin muuten

suoritettu saman luvun 4 §:ssä säädetyllä tavalla. Sen vuoksi

ojituksesta aiheutuneen vahingon korvaamiseen ei ollut sovellettava

vahingonkorvauslakia vaan vesilain säännöksiä.

VesiL 6 luku 4 §

VesiL 6 luku 6 §

VesiL 6 luku 12 §

VesiL 11 luku 20 §

Vihervuori: Vesistön järjestelyn ja ojituksen oikeuskysymykset

s. 91-95

Lainvoimainen