Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VakO 29.10.1996/11559:95 AI generated

Workplace stretching injury during employer-sponsored exercise class deemed not work-related due to lack of specific assignment.

Case Number VakO 29.10.1996/11559:95
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Insurance Court dismissed the claim for work-related injury compensation regarding a stretching injury sustained during an employer-sponsored exercise class. Although the employer and occupational health services encouraged participation, the court found no specific assignment or mandatory requirement for attendance. Consequently, the injury was ruled not to have occurred in work-related circumstances, overturning the previous accident board decision.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Workplace Act; Work Injury Act: An injury sustained during an employer-sponsored exercise class is not considered work-related unless the employee was specifically assigned to attend or the participation was mandatory.

Keywords

AI generated
workplace exercise class employer sponsored activity work-related injury criteria employee assignment requirement occupational health encouragement

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Workplace Act
Work Injury Act
AI generated
insurance_2001_9920-2000
Workplace injury during employer-organized activity counts as work-related injury for insurance coverage.
insurance_2000_4967-1999
Work accident claim dismissed because injury occurred during authorized off-duty visit to health center, not work conditions.
labour_2008_120
Labour court dismissed union's claim that employer breached collective agreement by failing to insure off-duty injury.
kko-precedent_2004_54
Supreme Court dismissed accident claim as voluntary sports activity during work hours did not constitute work-related conditions under the Accident Insurance Act.
insurance_1980_10644-1979
Work injury recognized when employee attends employer-organized roulette day as organizer, not optional leisure.

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

A oli työnantajansa ikääntyneille työntekijöilleen työaikana järjestämällä kuntoliikuntatunnilla työpaikalla sijaitsevassa voimistelusalissa venähdyttänyt polvensa. Liikuntatunnille ei ollut ketään erikseen määrätty, mutta sekä työnantaja että työterveyshuolto suosittivat osallistumista. VakO katsoi, ettei mainittu vahingoittuminen ollut tapahtunut työstä johtuvissa olosuhteissa. Tapaturmalautakunnan päätöstä muutettiin. (Äänestys 3-2) II-jaosto