Abstract
The most significant Finnish statute applying to liability in damages is the Tort Liability Act (412/1974: vahingonkorvauslaki). The Tort Liability Act applies both to tort liability and the quantum of damages. In contrast, it does not apply to contractual liability or damages or to liability provided in another act, unless otherwise provided.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Literature
Sampo Mielityinen, Vahingonkorvausoikeuden periaatteet (Edita, Helsinki 2006) 1 7 Sampo Mielityinen has written his doctoral thesis on the principles of tort law. The main objective is to articulate and justify the general principles of Finnish tort law: which legal principles should a Finnish judge regularly take into consideration when, e.g. interpreting a legal provision or a precedent applicable to a claim for damages? In the second place, in order to answer the aforementioned question, one must have a conception of how to argue for a certain principle: what kinds of argument are relevant in supporting a claim that a certain principle should be recognized as a legal principle? In this study, legal principles are understood in a Hartian vein as general, broad, and explicitly value-laden legal norms. In this study, the requirement of institutional support is given a material or substantial interpretation. In order to have institutional support, a principle should justify legal rules. Thus, to evaluate a principle’s institutional support is first and foremost to engage in practical argumentation. A principle’s institutional support is strengthened when 1) the ruling required by an unambiguous legal rule is justified by the principle or 2) the facts to which a vague legal rule attaches importance are relevant in evaluating the justification of a decision from the principle’s point of view. In order to be a legal principle, a principle should gain wide institutional support from legal rules which are important in practice and which have strong weight as the basis of a decision. If these requirements are not met, the moral rights and/or political goals expressed by the principle will not be realized in legal practice. In this study, four general principles of Finnish tort law are articulated and justified. According to the first principle, if the damage results from exposing the injured party’s fundamental rights to excessive risks, the wrongdoer is liable for damages (the principle of excessive risks). The principle requires the compensation to be proportional to the excessive risks. The moral justification of the principle is based on a liberal idea of providing everyone with appropriate resources (primary goods) with which to form and realize their own conception of a good life. According to the second principle, a natural person suffering grave personal injury is entitled to compensation (the principle of compensation for grave injuries). The moral justification of the principle stems from the liberal conception of primary goods. Grave personal injuries seriously disrupt the realization of one’s life plans. Therefore, the effects of the injuries should be mitigated. The third principle requires that the burdens of risky human activities are distributed to those who reap the benefits of the activity, ideally in proportion to the benefits (the principle of the fair distribution of harm). The moral justification of this principle is independent from, yet not contradictory with the justification of the aforementioned principles. The fourth principle is based on a reinterpretation of the notion of outcome 24 responsibility. In this study outcome responsibility is interpreted as a consequentialist principle that attaches importance to the cultural or symbolic effects of the legal decisions. Tort law should express that a human being’s prima facie responsibility for a damage he or she has caused is proportional to his or her ability to foresee and avoid the damage (the principle of outcome responsibility). In practice, the principle, for example, supports liability for damages if the damage was somewhat foreseeable and the foreseeability is explicitly recognized in the reasoning of the court.
Eero Routamo/ Pauli Ståhlberg/ Juha Karhu, Suomen vahingonkorvausoikeus (Talentum, Helsinki 5th ed. 2006) The first edition of this traditional tort law monograph was published in 1977. This book includes a basic package of Finnish tort law and is probably the monograph of tort law most used in Finland among law students and legal professionals. The authors are among the most highly respected authorities in the field of tort law. Eero Routamo is Professor Emeritus in civil and commercial law at the University of Helsinki. Pauli Ståhlberg is the director of the Consumer Complaint Board. Juha Karhu is the Professor of civil law at the University of Lapland. This volume focuses on non-contractual liability and the general principles of tort law, with the pride of place being given to the Tort Liability Act. The volume covers, for example, the following issues: the basic problems of tort law, history of tort law, negligence, scope of strict liability, vicarious liability, liabil-ity of employees, liability in the exercise of public authority, the requirement of causality, types of loss, contributory negligence and concept of damages. Exceptionally voluminous case-law relevant to tort and damages is provided. The reader also profits from the list of tort law literature at the end of the book.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2008 Springer-Verlag/Wien
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hakalehto-Wainio, S. (2008). Finland. In: Koziol, H., Steininger, B.C. (eds) European Tort Law 2006. Tort and Insurance Law, vol 2006. Springer, Vienna. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-211-77572-1_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-211-77572-1_12
Publisher Name: Springer, Vienna
Print ISBN: 978-3-211-70937-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-211-77572-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)