What sources does Taxxa search?

Taxxa searches a continuously updated collection of more than one million pages from tax authorities, government publications, legislation and case law across the European jurisdictions it covers. Every response cites the underlying material, so a professional can inspect the rule, its jurisdiction and whether it is current before relying on the result.

Can Taxxa work with a team’s own documents?

Yes. Research can combine the public knowledge base with a team’s own PDF, DOCX, CSV and TXT files in one workspace. That makes it possible to compare a client document with the relevant guidance, trace a conclusion to its source and prepare a draft without losing the evidence that supports it.

Who is Taxxa built for?

Accountants, auditors, tax advisors, payroll specialists, bookkeepers and advisory teams working across European jurisdictions. Shared workspaces keep research available to colleagues, and citations make review easier.

Where is customer data stored, and is it used to train models?

Customer data stays in the European Union and is never used to train language models.

Does Taxxa replace professional judgement?

No. Taxxa is a research and drafting workspace. It helps professionals reach an informed starting point faster; the professional still reviews the evidence and makes the final decision. It does not file returns, post bookkeeping entries or give legal advice.

FinlandFinlex

Care worker’s injury helping a fallen stranger qualifies as a work accident

In KKO:2026:58, a legal duty to assist a person in serious danger made stopping a journey between clients necessary. The insurer must pay statutory compensation.

By Taxxa AI OyPublished 3 September 2026

Payroll & Labour Legal & Corporate

A home-care worker who injured their knee while helping a fallen elderly person between client visits is entitled to statutory work-accident compensationFinlex, Finland’s Supreme Court has ruled in KKO:2026:58Finlex. The court found that their duty to help prevented them from continuing the work journey before taking steps to assist the person.Finlex

The practical nurse was travelling from one client to another on 3 January 2022Finlex. While walking from their car towards an apartment building, they encountered an elderly person heading to the same building who appeared unwell and then collapsed.Finlex As they helped the person towards the entrance, the person collapsed again and the worker’s knee twisted and was injured.

The insurer rejected compensationFinlex, and both the accident appeal board and the Insurance Court upheld the refusalFinlex. The Insurance Court accepted that the journey was travel required by a work task, but considered helping a stranger outside the ordinary activities associated with travelling.

The Supreme Court took a broader view of what the journey could include. Travel required by a work task is treated as working under section 21(2) of Työtapaturma- ja ammattitautilaki.Finlex Activities characteristic of travelling can include steps necessary to resume a journey that has been unexpectedly interrupted.Finlex

The decisive link was the general duty to assist someone in danger. Under Rikoslaki, a person who knows another is in danger of death or serious harm to health must obtain or provide the help reasonably expected of them, taking account of their abilities and the circumstancesFinlex. The Supreme Court found that the worker had justified grounds to assess the unwell, fallen person as being in serious danger to health and needing immediate help.Finlex

That duty required them to interrupt the journey and give the assistance reasonably expected of them.Finlex Because they could not continue before taking steps to help, their actions were necessary for resuming the journey.Finlex In those circumstances, the injury occurred in connection with work-task travel and was compensable.Finlex

The court also considered the legislative aim of equivalent protection for different work-related journeys. Although the provision governing ordinary home-to-work travel did not apply directly to this case, its explanatory material gives pushing a stalled car blocking the route as an example of action necessary to continue a journey.

The Supreme Court quashed the Insurance Court’s decision and ordered the insurer to pay statutory compensation for the accidentFinlex. It returned the case to the Insurance Court for the resulting measures.

The ruling applies Työtapaturma- ja ammattitautilaki (459/2015), section 21(2), with the duty to assist under Rikoslaki (39/1889), chapter 21, section 15.

When assessing an injury during work-task travel, examine whether a legal duty to assist made the interruption necessary before the worker could continue.

Sources

KKO:2026:58