Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Helsingin HO 27.11.1985 1206 AI generated

Dog owner's claim for damages dismissed due to lack of fault and strict liability under Finnish law.

Case Number Helsingin HO 27.11.1985 1206
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court dismissed the claim by owner A against owner B for damages caused when B's dog injured A's dog. B argued that neither intent nor negligence could be attributed to him, and the strict liability provision was not met. Consequently, the court ruled that without established fault or applicable strict liability, the plaintiff could not recover compensation.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

RK 22:7 §: Strict liability for dog damage applies only when fault or specific statutory conditions are met; absence of intent, negligence, or strict liability grounds results in dismissal of the claim.

Keywords

AI generated
strict liability dog damage negligence requirement animal injury compensation fault-based liability civil damages claim

Cited Legislation

AI generated
RK 22:7 §
Kun B:n syyksi ei voitu lukea tahallisuutta tai tuottamusta eikä RK 22:7 §:ssä ilmenevää ankaraa vastuuta sovellettu koiran toiselle koiralle aiheuttamaan vahinkoon, kanne on hylätty.

Cited Case Law

AI generated
I-SHO T: TU-288/81
Verr.: I-SHO T: TU-288/81, A 20.8.1981
AI generated
ECLI:FI:KKO:2025:37
Supreme Court dismisses negligence charge for uncontained dogs escaping and injuring reindeer due to insufficient fence height.
ECLI:FI:KKO:2024:5
Supreme Court of Finland dismisses death order for dog after two minor unprovoked bites by minor owner.
appeal_1981_vaasa__324
Negligence in transporting a tethered dog causes car damage; liability established due to failure to secure the animal.
appeal_1979_vaasa__543
Court of Appeal dismissed negligence claim for dog injury to car caused by owner's failure to restrain dog.
ECLI:FI:KKO:2026:39
Supreme Court dismisses animal custody bans for gross negligence animal protection crime where conditions improved post-crime.

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

Koirien ulkoilualueella, jossa koiria sai pitää kytkemättöminä, oli kahden koiran telmiessä vapaana A:n omistaman koiran silmä vahingoittunut. Vahingon sattuessa toisen koiran omistaja B oli itse ollut ulkoiluttamassa koiraansa. A on vaatinut B:n velvoittamista suorittamaan vahingonkorvausta. Kun B:n syyksi ei voitu lukea tahallisuutta tai tuottamusta eikä RK 22:7 §:ssä ilmenevää ankaraa vastuuta sovellettu koiran toiselle koiralle aiheuttamaan vahinkoon, kanne on hylätty.

RK 22:7 sen ruotsinkielisessä asussa

(vertaa sanoja "eläin" ja "fä")

Saxén: Skadeståndsrätt, 1975, s. 227

Verr.: I-SHO T: TU-288/81, A 20.8.1981

Läsnä: E. Luova, Piira ja Korhonen Esittelijä: Larinkoski

Lainvoimainen