Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
KKO 463/2003 AI generated

Supreme Court dismissed claim for damages for occupational disease when same injury could be claimed as work-related illness.

Case Number KKO 463/2003
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for damages against the employer for lung damage caused by mold and moisture in the workplace. The plaintiff argued the injury resulted from the employer's negligence, while the defense contended the condition should be treated as an occupational disease. The court ruled that since the injury could be compensated as an occupational disease, the general tort claim was inadmissible.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Work Injury Act 1985; Occupational Disease Act 1985: Where an injury is compensable as an occupational disease, a separate claim for damages based on negligence is inadmissible.

Keywords

AI generated
occupational disease compensation work injury exclusivity negligence claim inadmissibility mold damage liability supreme court review

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Work Injury Act 1985
Occupational Disease Act 1985
AI generated
insurance_1977_6782-1976
Workplace injury during lunch break deemed work-related accident under Finnish Insurance Court jurisdiction.
kko-precedent_1998_81
Supreme Court remands case for retrial due to lower courts' failure to address employer liability and negligence requirements under tort law.
kko-precedent_1997_196
Supreme Court reduces damages for wrongful dismissal by deducting unemployment benefits and limits interest to post-judgment date.
appeal_1980_turku__505
Appeal dismissed; joint liability under damage compensation law requires separate claims against employer and employee.
kko-precedent_2007_52
Supreme Court remands case for retrial due to procedural error and insufficient evidence on lost wages.

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

Kanteessa vaadittiin työnantajalta vahingonkorvausta sillä perusteella, että kantaja oli altistunut vastaajan palveluksessa työskennellessään home- ja kosteusvaurioille ja että hänelle oli näin tuottamuksellisesti aiheutettu keuhkovamma. Kysymys kanteen tutkimisesta yleisessä tuomioistuimessa, kun sama vamma saattoi tulla korvattavaksi ammattitautina.