Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
KKO 463/2003 Generato dall'IA

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

Numero d'incarto KKO 463/2003
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Finlandia (FI)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Respinto (Dismissed)
Apri la fonte ufficiale Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

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.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

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.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
occupational disease compensation work injury exclusivity negligence claim inadmissibility mold damage liability supreme court review occupazione sostitutiva esigibile lavoro a domicilio disoccupazione imputabile a colpa dell'assicurato

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
Work Injury Act 1985
Occupational Disease Act 1985
Generato dall'IA
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.

Ti chiedi come si applica questa sentenza alla tua fattispecie?

Analizza questa decisione insieme alla legislazione federale e cantonale, ai commentari e alla giurisprudenza successiva in Legislator AI.

Apri in Legislator →

Testo completo

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.