FINLAND Law and Practice Contributed by: Jussi Laasonen and Saara Järvinen, Ruoholahti Law
In commercial product liability, the general rules on the limitation of claims apply. As a main rule, a claim becomes time-barred after three years from the date on which the buyer noticed a defect or non-conformity in the object of sale. However, the limitation period for damages will, in any case, be interrupted no later than ten years from the breach of contract or from the event that led to the damage. The limitation period may be interrupted informally. 2.4 Jurisdictional Requirements for Product Liability Claims The competent courts in cases based on the Product Liability Act are the district court of the defendant’s domicile, the court of the claimant’s own domicile, or the court of the place where the damage occurred. In international cases, jurisdiction is determined in accordance with the Brussels I Regulation or other applicable international agreements. 2.5 Pre-Action Procedures and Requirements for Product Liability Claims There are no mandatory steps that must be taken before legal proceedings can be commenced in prod - uct liability cases under Finnish law. 2.6 Rules for Preservation of Evidence in Product Liability Claims Finnish legislation does not contain provisions on the preservation of evidence. However, the destruction of evidence (eg, a product) weakens the position of the party bearing the burden of proof regarding the safety or defectiveness of the product. 2.7 Rules for Disclosure of Documents in Product Liability Cases There are no specific rules in Finland governing the disclosure of documents or other evidence in product liability cases, but the general rules for disclosure of documents apply. Finnish law does not recognise a formal “discovery” procedure. However, the general rules on evidence require the parties to obtain the evidence necessary
for the case. In addition, at the request of a party, the court may order that an object or document be brought to court or that an inspection be conducted if the object or document could be of significance as proof, or if conducting an inspection could be of significance in obtaining proof. The requesting party must be able to specify the document sought and justify its relevance as evidence. The court may enforce its order by imposing a condi - tional fine and by requesting a distraint officer to bring the object or document to the court. Furthermore, the court has the right to obtain executive assistance from the police in order to ensure that an inspection is con - ducted. 2.8 Rules for Expert Evidence in Product Liability Cases There are no specific rules in Finland governing expert evidence in product liability cases. However, the gen - eral provisions regarding expert evidence also apply in product liability cases. According to general provisions, an expert witness must be independent and provide an impartial writ - ten opinion. An expert witness is heard orally in court only if it is necessary to clarify ambiguities, deficien - cies or inconsistencies in the expert’s statement, if the court otherwise considers it necessary, or if a party so requests and the hearing is not considered manifestly unnecessary. 2.9 Burden of Proof in Product Liability Cases In product liability cases in Finland, the burden of proof lies with the injured party. The injured party must prove the injury or damage, the defect in the product as well as the causal relationship between the defect and the injury or damage. The assessment of the evidence presented is carried out in accordance with the general principles of evi - dence applicable in Finland, meaning that the court evaluates the evidence based on the principle of free consideration of the evidence. Free consideration of the evidence means that the court is not bound by any provisions regulating its discretion. Rather, the court is obliged to freely assess the probative value of the evidence presented.
116 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook