Occupational Hazards And Criminal Law In Finland
1. Overview: Occupational Hazards & Criminal Liability in Finland
1.1 Governing Legal Framework
Occupational safety and resulting criminal liability are primarily governed by:
Criminal Code of Finland (Rikoslaki)
• Chapter 47 – Occupational Safety Offences
• Offences include:
– Occupational safety offence (työturvallisuusrikos)
– Work discrimination
– Negligent causing of danger
Occupational Safety and Health Act (Työturvallisuuslaki 738/2002)
• Establishes the employer’s general duty of care.
• Requires risk assessment, safety training, safe equipment, supervision, and hazard prevention.
Employer and Supervisor Liability
• Employers (legal persons) can incur corporate fines.
• Responsible individuals (managers, supervisors, site foremen) can be criminally liable through omission (failure to act).
1.2 Key Principles of Criminal Liability
Duty of Care (Huolellisuusvelvoite)
Liability arises when an employer or supervisor fails to implement reasonable safety measures.
Foreseeability (Ennakoitavuus)
A risk must have been reasonably foreseeable.
Causation (Syy-yhteys)
The breach must significantly contribute to the injury/death or endangerment.
Corporate Liability
A company can be fined even when an individual employee committed the negligent act.
2. Important Finnish Case Law
Below are five significant Finnish Supreme Court cases often cited in discussions about occupational safety offences.
Case 1 – KKO 2002:94
Subject: Fall from height – failure to provide adequate fall protection
Core Issue: Employer’s duty to ensure safe working platforms.
Facts
An employee installing structures at a construction site fell from a significant height and was severely injured. The working platform lacked adequate guardrails and fall-prevention equipment.
Court’s Findings
The employer and site supervisor failed to perform a proper risk assessment.
Missing guardrails was a clear breach of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.
Supervisors had specific responsibility due to their position of control.
Outcome
Convictions for occupational safety offence.
Corporate fine imposed on the company.
Legal Significance
Clarified that in high-risk work (construction, heights), failure to provide physical safety systems automatically constitutes criminal negligence.
Case 2 – KKO 2006:86
Subject: Forklift accident – inadequate training and supervision
Core Issue: Employer responsibility for ensuring competency of machine operators.
Facts
A warehouse employee was injured when another worker operating a forklift made a sudden maneuver. The operator had not received formal training nor had his skills been evaluated.
Court’s Findings
The employer had a duty to ensure the forklift operator had adequate training, not just informal familiarity.
Supervisors were aware of the lack of training but took no corrective action.
Outcome
Employer representatives convicted of occupational safety offence.
Corporate fine imposed.
Legal Significance
The case established that training obligations cannot be delegated informally, and operating heavy machinery without certification typically constitutes a foreseeable hazard.
Case 3 – KKO 2015:42
Subject: Machinery maintenance accident – unclear supervisory responsibility
Core Issue: Allocation of criminal responsibility within complex organizational structures.
Facts
A maintenance worker was fatally injured while repairing a production machine that had not been properly locked out or secured. Safety procedures existed but were poorly implemented.
Court’s Findings
Although the company had written safety instructions, responsible supervisors failed to ensure compliance, making the instructions practically ineffective.
The Court examined who had actual decision-making authority and imposed liability accordingly.
Outcome
Individual supervisor convicted due to actual control, not merely formal title.
Corporate fine.
Legal Significance
Reaffirmed that liability follows actual responsibility, not organizational charts, and that safety instructions are meaningless unless actively enforced.
Case 4 – KKO 2017:46
Subject: Chemical exposure – inadequate ventilation and failure to control hazardous substances
Core Issue: Employer duties in managing invisible/long-term risks.
Facts
Factory workers were exposed to harmful chemical fumes due to malfunctioning ventilation systems. Complaints had been made but no immediate corrective measures were taken.
Court’s Findings
The employer had constructive knowledge of the hazard due to repeated complaints.
Failure to respond promptly constituted negligent endangerment and an occupational safety offence.
Outcome
Convictions for safety offences.
Emphasis on employer’s duty to respond promptly to reported hazards.
Legal Significance
Highlighted liability for exposure to invisible risks, not just acute accidents, and reinforced the obligation to act on employee safety concerns.
Case 5 – KKO 2021:1
Subject: Construction site coordination – multiple subcontractors
Core Issue: Determining responsibility for safety on multi-employer worksites.
Facts
A worker employed by a subcontractor was injured at a large construction site due to inadequate site coordination and poor communication about hazards.
Court’s Findings
The main contractor had overall responsibility for site-wide safety management, even if individual tasks were subcontracted.
The main contractor failed to:
• conduct adequate site-specific hazard assessment
• coordinate safety measures among subcontractors
• verify that subcontractors adhered to safety requirements
Outcome
Main contractor and responsible supervisors convicted.
Company received a corporate fine.
Legal Significance
Clarified the central role of the main contractor (päätoteuttaja) in managing safety risks on multi-employer construction sites.
3. Key Themes Derived from the Case Law
3.1 Active Safety Management Required
Courts expect employers to actively manage risks, not merely provide written instructions.
3.2 Supervisory Liability is Personal
Supervisors are criminally liable when they:
have actual authority
fail to enforce safety
ignore known hazards
3.3 Corporate Fines Are Common
Companies often receive fines even when individual supervisors are also convicted.
3.4 Delegation Does Not Remove Employer Liability
Employers must verify that delegated safety tasks are performed correctly.
3.5 Foreseeability is Broadly Interpreted
If a risk is typical for the industry (heights, machines, chemicals), courts routinely find foreseeability.
RELATED Blog
comments