Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Helsingin HO 11.01.1984 818 AI generated

Defendant liable for defective tire explosion damages; plaintiff's claim against tire seller upheld, claim against buyer dismissed due to lack of evidence.

Case Number Helsingin HO 11.01.1984 818
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Partially Allowed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court upheld the plaintiff's claim against the tire coating company for damages caused by an exploding defective tire but dismissed the claim against the buyer due to insufficient evidence. The defendant failed to demonstrate adequate care in selecting tire cores for coating, establishing liability under the principle of contributory negligence. Consequently, the company was ordered to compensate the plaintiff for the vehicle damage resulting from the explosion.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Product Liability Act; Tort Liability Act: A manufacturer or processor is liable for damages caused by a defective product if they failed to exercise due care in production or selection of components, while a buyer bears no liability absent proof of fault.

Keywords

AI generated
product liability defective tire manufacturing defect tort liability contributory negligence damages compensation evidence burden

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Product Liability Act
Tort Liability Act
AI generated
appeal_1981_vaasa__103
Court holds road authority liable for car damage caused by a stone rising from road defects.
kko-precedent_1996_24
Supreme Court holds that handing a car to a drunk driver constitutes gross negligence requiring joint liability for insurance claims.
market_2001_9
Consumer Court bans Radiolinja from misleading recycling claims and unclear mobile plan pricing.
appeal_1985_vaasa__2319
Private road keeper liable for stone causing car damage despite claiming no neglect.
kko-precedent_1996_47
Supreme Court upholds joint liability for damage caused by assisting theft of insured vehicle.

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

U:n osakeyhtiöltä A ostama, osakeyhtiö V:n pinnoittama autonrengas oli räjähtänyt ajossa, mistä oli ollut seurauksena auton vaurioituminen. Asiassa oli selvitetty, että V:n pinnoittaman autonrenkaan runko oli ollut virheellinen luultavasti jo rengasta pinnoitettaessa. V yhtiöstä oli myös aiemmin toimitettu useita viallisia autonrenkaita yhtiölle A edelleen myytäviksi.

Yhtiö V, joka ei ollut näyttänyt, että yhtiössä olisi noudatettu riittävää huolellisuutta valittaessa rengasrunkoja pinnoittamista varten, velvoitettiin tuottamuksensa perusteella korvaamaan U:lle viallisen renkaan räjähtämisestä aiheutunut vahinko.

Alioikeuden päätös pysytetty siltä osin kun kanne oli hylätty A:ta vastaan, koska A:n tuottamusta ei ollut näytetty toteen.

Läsnä: Hirvonen, Korhonen (apuj.) ja Lehto-Kinnunen (apuj.) Esittelijä: Ojala

Lainvoimainen