Supreme Court preliminary ruling KKO:2022:52 - truck crane installation

This case illustrates well how a law that emphasizes objectives, but is less detailed, works in cases where the spirit of the law is attempted to be evaded on the basis of formalities. This is a case where a company had commissioned an installation company to install a loading crane that the company had purchased on a crane stand, after which the installation company was to install the combination on the company's truck. When an employee of the company had used the crane at work, it had come off the mounting stand and fallen, causing injuries to the employee. The prosecutor had demanded that the CEO of the installation company be punished for an occupational safety offence. The prosecutor also demanded that the installation company be sentenced to a community fine.

The District Court stated that the prosecution's charge was based on Section 58 of the Occupational Safety Act, which states: "Anyone who, on assignment, installs a machine, work tool or other device for use at a workplace must take into account the manufacturer's and other instructions for installation and must otherwise ensure that the machine or device, including its protective devices, is brought into proper condition."

According to the District Court's interpretation, the case did not involve the installation of a machine or device at the workplace, as the installation took place on the premises of the installation company, while the accident occurred on the premises of the client company. The District Court dismissed the charges.

The Court of Appeal, however, interpreted the text of the occupational safety section in question differently. In its opinion, the wording of the section clearly supported the fact that the provision did not require installation work to be carried out at the workplace where the installation is also put into use.

The prosecution of the CEO of the installation company had already expired, but the summons for a corporate fine issued to the company had been issued within the five-year limitation period. The Court of Appeal sentenced the installation company to a corporate fine of 5,000 euros. The Supreme Court reached the same interpretation as the Court of Appeal and the corporate fine judgment remained in effect. KKO:2022:52 | 20.9.2022 | Preliminary rulings | Supreme Court | Finlex