Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
KKO 1871/2000 Generato dall'IA

Supreme Court dismissed claim for additional shoulder injuries not directly caused by the fall.

Numero d'incarto KKO 1871/2000
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 employee's claim for compensation regarding additional shoulder injuries sustained alongside the main injury from a fall. The employee argued that other shoulder damages were consequential to the accident, while the opposing party contended they were unrelated. The court ruled that only injuries directly caused by the fall were compensable, excluding those deemed independent or secondary.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

Työmenetelmäsääntely 1983: 10 §; 11 §: An employee is entitled to compensation only for injuries directly caused by the work accident, excluding those that are independent or merely coincidental to the event.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
work accident compensation causation of injury direct consequence independent injury workmen's compensation supreme court ruling liability assessment peggioramento notevole della salute

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
Työmenetelmäsääntely 1983: 10 §
Työmenetelmäsääntely 1983: 11 §
Generato dall'IA
kko-other_2011_2942
Supreme Court dismisses claim that shoulder rotator cuff and biceps tendon rupture caused a traffic accident.
kko-other_2007_483
Supreme Court dismissed asylum claim where applicant failed to prove accidental tear of filter membrane caused by trauma.
kko-other_1996_674
Workplace injury claim dismissed because employee's fall was caused by his own negligence, not employer fault.
kko-other_2001_1723
Work accident claim denied when pre-existing shoulder condition was the primary cause of injury.
kko-other_1996_2373
Workplace injury claim dismissed because surgical implant failure was deemed a manufacturing defect, not an accident.

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

Työntekijä oli pudonnut kuorman päältä maahan ja vahingoittunut muun muassa oikeaan olkapäähänsä. Kysymys siitä, oliko hän saanut tapaturman seurauksena korvattavaksi katsotun oikean olkapään kiertäjäkalvosimen repeämän lisäksi myös muita olkanivelen vammoja.