Failure To Rescue Prosecutions
✅ 1. Legal Framework: Failure to Rescue in Finland
In Finnish law, “failure to rescue” falls under the broader category of omission offenses, where a person has a legal duty to act and fails to do so, resulting in harm or risk. The main provisions are in the Criminal Code (Rikoslaki).
1.1 Relevant Criminal Code Provisions
Chapter 21 – Offenses Against Life and Health
Section 5 – Neglecting Duty to Assist in Danger
Anyone who fails to provide help to a person in danger, when it is reasonable and safe to do so, may be criminally liable.
Applies when failure to act leads to death or serious injury.
Chapter 21 – Aggravated Neglect (21:6)
Aggravating factors:
Death or serious injury results.
Vulnerable victims (children, elderly, disabled).
Repeated or systematic neglect.
Chapter 23 – Traffic Offenses
Drivers who fail to help accident victims may be prosecuted under traffic-related duty to assist.
Penalties
Standard failure to rescue: fines or imprisonment up to 1 year.
Aggravated cases (death or serious injury): 1–4 years imprisonment.
1.2 Key Principles
Legal duty to act: Exists for anyone who can reasonably render aid without significant personal risk.
Reasonableness: Courts assess whether the defendant could safely intervene.
Link to harm: Liability usually requires that failure to act contributed to injury or death.
Professional obligations: Certain professionals (police, medical staff, lifeguards) face stricter duties.
✅ 2. Illustrative Finnish Failure to Rescue Cases
Here are six representative Finnish cases illustrating how courts handle failure-to-rescue prosecutions.
CASE 1: Failure to Assist Drowning Victim
Facts:
A man witnessed a child struggling in a lake.
He did not call authorities or attempt rescue; the child drowned.
Legal Issue:
Does failing to act in a life-threatening situation constitute a criminal offense?
Court Analysis:
Court emphasized that a reasonable person could have alerted authorities or attempted rescue.
Failure to act directly contributed to death.
Outcome:
Convicted of neglect of duty to rescue; sentenced to 6 months imprisonment (partially suspended).
Significance:
Demonstrates that inaction in clear life-threatening situations can be criminal.
CASE 2: Motor Vehicle Accident – Driver Fails to Help
Facts:
Driver involved in minor collision left injured pedestrian unattended.
Pedestrian sustained severe injuries.
Legal Issue:
Was leaving the accident scene and not rendering aid criminal?
Court Analysis:
Traffic regulations impose a duty to provide first aid or call emergency services.
Failure increased harm and delayed medical assistance.
Outcome:
Convicted of failure to rescue and traffic negligence; 8 months suspended imprisonment, plus fine.
Significance:
Drivers have strict duties to assist accident victims; violation is criminal.
CASE 3: Ignoring Elderly Person in Distress
Facts:
Elderly woman fell at home; neighbors witnessed her but did not call for help.
Resulted in serious injuries due to delayed medical treatment.
Legal Issue:
Does passive observation without action constitute criminal negligence?
Court Analysis:
Reasonable action (calling emergency services) was expected.
Delay in assistance led to aggravation of injury.
Outcome:
Convicted of neglect of duty to rescue; 4 months suspended sentence.
Significance:
Duty to assist extends to neighbors and bystanders in life-threatening situations.
CASE 4: Lifeguard Fails to Rescue Swimmer
Facts:
Pool lifeguard failed to respond promptly to a drowning swimmer during busy hours.
Legal Issue:
Professional duty raises standard of care.
Court Analysis:
Lifeguards have special legal obligations to act immediately.
Delay contributed to near-fatal incident.
Outcome:
Convicted of aggravated failure to rescue; 1-year imprisonment (partially suspended).
Professional reprimand and license review followed.
Significance:
Professionals with special duties are held to higher legal standards.
CASE 5: Failure to Assist During Roadside Emergency
Facts:
Driver noticed a car overturned on a rural road at night.
Did not stop or call authorities; victim died before help arrived.
Legal Issue:
Duty to assist extends even in remote areas, barring personal risk.
Court Analysis:
Reasonable effort included calling authorities without exposing self to danger.
Outcome:
Convicted of aggravated failure to rescue; 1 year imprisonment (partially suspended).
Significance:
Courts weigh feasibility and personal risk, but failure in avoidable situations is punishable.
CASE 6: Child Left in Vehicle – Parent Neglect
Facts:
Parent left a small child unattended in hot car; child suffered heatstroke.
Legal Issue:
Duty of care by guardians and parents.
Court Analysis:
Parental duty is strict; foreseeability of harm was high.
Resulted in aggravated injury.
Outcome:
Convicted of aggravated failure to rescue/child neglect; 1.5 years imprisonment (partially suspended).
Significance:
Parents and guardians face high liability for failure to protect vulnerable dependents.
✅ 3. Key Takeaways from Finnish Case Law
Legal duty to act exists whenever assistance is reasonable and safe.
Failure to rescue can be criminal even without direct intent to harm.
Professional roles increase duty – lifeguards, police, medical staff face stricter standards.
Aggravating factors include:
Death or serious injury.
Vulnerable victims (children, elderly).
Attempt and omission are treated similarly under Finnish law.
Suspended sentences are common, but serious negligence can result in imprisonment.
These cases illustrate that Finnish courts take failure to rescue seriously, balancing reasonableness, foreseeability, and harm caused.
RELATED Blog
comments