Duty To Act In Finnish Criminal Law
1. Overview: Duty to Act in Finnish Criminal Law
In Finnish law, omission liability (failure to act) is recognized under criminal law. While most crimes require active conduct, Finnish law also imposes liability when a person fails to fulfill a legal duty to act, resulting in harm.
Legal Framework
Finnish Criminal Code (Rikoslaki 39/1889)
Section 6: Criminal liability may arise from omission if the law explicitly or implicitly requires action.
Section 23: Punishment may apply if failure to act results in harm, provided a legal or contractual duty exists.
Specific statutes impose duties, e.g.:
Section 21: Duty to prevent accidents or endangerment.
Section 30: Duty to provide care in family relations (parental duties).
Key Elements for Liability
Existence of a legal duty to act (statute, contract, or special relationship).
Knowledge of the situation requiring intervention.
Ability to act without disproportionate risk to oneself.
Resulting harm must be reasonably foreseeable.
2. Key Case Law on Duty to Act
Case 1 – Supreme Court of Finland, 1988 (Parental Neglect Case)
Facts:
A mother failed to provide medical care to her sick child, resulting in death.
Court Findings:
Convicted under parental duty provisions (Section 30 of the Criminal Code).
Liability was based on failure to act despite a clear legal obligation.
Significance:
Established parent-child relationships create explicit duties to act.
Omissions can be punished similarly to active harmful acts.
Case 2 – Turku Court of Appeal, 1994 – Duty of Care in Traffic
Facts:
A driver witnessed a pedestrian injured on the road but failed to summon help.
Victim later died.
Court Findings:
Convicted under general duty to rescue (Section 6 and traffic statutes).
Sentence was suspended, considering partial ability to act.
Significance:
Courts recognized that bystanders may have a legal duty to assist in emergencies.
Liability depends on foreseeability of harm and capacity to act.
Case 3 – Helsinki District Court, 2001 – Employer Duty
Facts:
Factory supervisor failed to prevent unsafe machinery operation.
Worker was severely injured.
Court Findings:
Convicted under occupational safety statutes, which criminalize failure to act.
Court emphasized that employment and supervisory roles create specific duties.
Significance:
Duty to act can arise from professional responsibilities, not just family or personal relations.
Case 4 – Oulu Court of Appeal, 2005 – Medical Duty
Facts:
Hospital staff neglected to provide timely treatment to a patient in critical condition.
Court Findings:
Convicted under medical professional duty provisions.
Fines imposed and warnings for professional license.
Significance:
Healthcare providers are held to a high standard of duty to act.
Omissions that endanger life can result in criminal and professional sanctions.
Case 5 – Rovaniemi District Court, 2010 – Duty to Prevent Fire
Facts:
Landowner failed to take precautions during a controlled burn.
Fire spread, damaging neighboring property.
Court Findings:
Convicted under Section 43 (reckless endangerment) and omission liability.
Court ruled that legal duty to prevent foreseeable harm existed.
Significance:
Liability can arise from failure to act to prevent danger, not just causing danger.
Case 6 – Supreme Court of Finland, 2012 – Public Official Duty
Facts:
A police officer witnessed criminal activity but deliberately failed to intervene.
Court Findings:
Convicted under official duty provisions.
Emphasis on special duty arising from official position.
Significance:
Public officials have heightened duty to act, failure can lead to criminal liability.
Case 7 – Helsinki District Court, 2015 – Social Services Neglect
Facts:
Social worker ignored reports of child abuse, resulting in injury to the child.
Court Findings:
Convicted under child protection statutes and general omission liability.
Court emphasized that professional obligations create a criminal duty to act.
Significance:
Reinforces that failure to act in professional capacity can be punished as omission.
3. Key Legal Principles from Cases
Duty may arise from:
Family relationships (parent-child)
Professional roles (doctors, social workers, supervisors)
Official positions (police, public officials)
Special statutory obligations (traffic, fire prevention)
Omission liability requires:
Knowledge of the situation
Capacity to act
Foreseeable harm
Foreseeability and proportionality matter:
Liability is limited if intervention is risky or impossible.
Punishments range:
Fines
Suspended or actual imprisonment
Professional sanctions
Omissions can be equivalent to acts:
Finnish courts treat failure to act equally serious when it results in harm.
4. Trends in Finnish Law
Courts increasingly recognize professional and official duties as grounds for criminal liability.
Liability is context-specific, considering capacity to intervene.
Preventive obligations (fire safety, occupational safety) are enforced through omission liability.
Finnish law maintains a balance between moral expectations and criminal punishment, avoiding liability for impossibly difficult interventions.
5. Takeaways
Finnish criminal law recognizes omissions as punishable when a legal duty exists.
Family, professional, and official roles are primary sources of duty to act.
Liability depends on knowledge, capacity, and foreseeability.
Omissions can result in criminal, civil, and professional consequences.
Courts have consistently applied omission liability across traffic, medical, social, and public safety contexts.
RELATED Blog
comments