Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Vaasan HO 07.12.1979 543/79 AI generated

Court of Appeal dismissed negligence claim for dog injury to car caused by owner's failure to restrain dog.

Case Number Vaasan HO 07.12.1979 543/79
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Court of Appeal in Vaasa dismissed the plaintiff's claim for damages against the defendant, who was found liable in the lower court for allowing his dog to escape and strike a vehicle. The lower court held the defendant negligent for failing to restrain his dog, causing sudden damage to the plaintiff's car. The appellate court reversed this decision, ruling that the defendant was not negligent under the circumstances.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Section 1 of the Act on Compensation for Damage; Section 2 of the Act on Compensation for Damage: A dog owner is not liable for damage caused by the dog if the escape was due to the dog's own behavior rather than the owner's negligence.

Keywords

AI generated
negligence liability dog owner responsibility animal damage failure to restrain compensation for damage

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Section 1 of the Act on Compensation for Damage
Section 2 of the Act on Compensation for Damage
AI generated
kko-precedent_2011_107
Supreme Court allows claimant's damages claim against hunter for dog running onto road causing car collision.
appeal_1981_vaasa__324
Negligence in transporting a tethered dog causes car damage; liability established due to failure to secure the animal.
ECLI:FI:KKO:2025:37
Supreme Court dismisses negligence charge for uncontained dogs escaping and injuring reindeer due to insufficient fence height.
kko-precedent_1989_99
Supreme Court dismisses traffic charge against driver who followed rules when other driver illegally entered opposing lane.
appeal_1980_eastern-finland__79
Court dismisses criminal charge for shooting a dog to save livestock from imminent danger caused by owner's negligence.

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

Kihlakunnanoikeus katsoi selvitetyksi, että A oli taluttaessaan maantiellä omistamaansa saksanpaimenkoiraa kaulapannasta päästänyt koiran irti, jolloin se oli juossut B:n omistaman ja kuljettaman henkilöauton eteen niin yllättäen, ettei B ollut ehtinyt pysäyttää autoa, vaan koira oli jäänyt auton alle, ja auto oli vaurioitunut. Kun A:n oli katsottava syyllistyneen koiransa valvonnassa huolimattomuuteen ja hän oli siten tuottamuksellaan aiheuttanut B:lle vahingon, kihlakunnanoikeus velvoitti A:n korvaamaan B:n vahingon.

Hovioikeus: ei syytä. (Ään.)

Lainvoimainen