Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Vaasan HO 04.04.1985 214/85 AI generated

Court dismisses employer liability for employee's intentional tort against third party unrelated to work duties.

Case Number Vaasan HO 04.04.1985 214/85
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court dismissed the passenger's claim against the bus company for damages caused by the driver's intentional assault. The driver intentionally injured a passenger due to personal frustration over the passenger's wife's driving style, which was unrelated to the driver's professional duties. Since the tort was committed against a third party and was not connected to the performance of work, the employer was not liable under the Compensation Act.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Vahingonkorvauslaki 1981, 3 luvun 1 §:n nojalla; Employer liability for employee's intentional tort is excluded when the act is unrelated to work duties and directed at a third party.

Keywords

AI generated
employer liability intentional tort work connection third party victim Compensation Act employee duties personal motive

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Compensation Act 1981, Chapter 3, Section 1
Arti: Vahingonkorvauslaki, 1981, s. 125 ss.
AI generated
appeal_1979_eastern-finland__345
Driver's minor negligence in shifting gear exempts employer from liability for vehicle damage caused by accident.
labour_2013_55
Labor court dismisses employer's dismissal due to failure to follow collective agreement termination protection rules.
labour_2002_1
Court dismisses union claim for wrongful dismissal damages where serious safety violations justified immediate termination.
labour_2005_65
Labor court dismisses union claim that employer violated collective agreement by withholding guaranteed pay for shortened work periods.
labour_2005_11
Court held that driver's negligence did not justify dismissal under collective agreement due to lack of prior warnings and overall circumstances.

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

Kommandiittiyhtiön palveluksessa ollut linja-autonkuljettaja oli tahallaan pahoinpidellyt maantiellä erästä henkilöauton matkustajaa. Pahoinpitelyn syynä olleet tapahtumat olivat saaneet alkunsa matkustajan vaimon ohjaaman auton kuljettamistavasta, joka oli ärsyttänyt linja-autonkuljettajaa. Koska pahoinpitely oli kohdistunut täysin ulkopuoliseen henkilöön eli henkilöauton matkustajaan eikä teko ollut liittynyt luonteenomaisesti linja-autonkuljettajan työsuoritukseen, kommandiittiyhtiö työnantajana ei ollut vahingonkorvauslain 3 luvun 1 §:n nojalla vastuussa matkustajalle aiheutetusta vahingosta.

Ks. Arti: Vahingonkorvauslaki, 1981, s. 125 ss.

Kivivuori: Työnantajan ja työntekijän vastuu. Lakimiesliiton

koulutuskeskuksen julkaisusarja n:o 15, 1975, s. 56-58

Routamo: Lakimies 1975, s. 535 ss.

Routamo-Hoppu: Suomen vahingonkorvausoikeus, 1977, s. 140 ss.

Saxén: Skadeståndsrätt, 1975, s. 185-189

Taxell: Avtal och rättsskydd, 1972, s. 342

I-jaosto

Lainvoimainen