Principalansvar - uthyrning och utlåning av arbetstagare
(2013) LAGF03 20131Department of Law
- Abstract
- Employers are, in Swedish law, vicariously liable for damage caused by their employees while on duty. This means that the employer will be held liable for the conduct of his or her employees, even though the employer hasn’t been negligent. The provision is to be found in chapter 3 § 1 in the Swedish Tort Liability Act. Temporary agency work is however becoming increasingly common in Sweden, which may lead to some uncertainty regarding which employer who is liable for damage caused by a temporary agency worker. I’ve therefore chosen to investigate whether the temporary-work agency or the user company is liable for damage caused by a temporary agency worker and critically examine the underlying interests.
Whether the temporary-work agency... (More) - Employers are, in Swedish law, vicariously liable for damage caused by their employees while on duty. This means that the employer will be held liable for the conduct of his or her employees, even though the employer hasn’t been negligent. The provision is to be found in chapter 3 § 1 in the Swedish Tort Liability Act. Temporary agency work is however becoming increasingly common in Sweden, which may lead to some uncertainty regarding which employer who is liable for damage caused by a temporary agency worker. I’ve therefore chosen to investigate whether the temporary-work agency or the user company is liable for damage caused by a temporary agency worker and critically examine the underlying interests.
Whether the temporary-work agency or the user company is liable for damage caused by the temporary agency worker normally depends on which of the two companies that is able to control and supervise the employee’s work. However, if the temporary agency worker isn’t incorporated into the organization of the user company, other factors such as the possibility of taking out a liability insurance will be taken into consideration instead. Furthermore, a temporary-work agency is liable for damage in contractual relations caused by a temporary agency worker if there is a connection between the contract and the tortious act.
There’re several interests that are affected by the legislation in question and the interpretation of it. However, these interests are to a certain extent incompatible. For instance, in order to prevent material damage or personal injury it’s reasonable that the company which is able to control and supervise the employee’s work should be liable for injury and material damage caused by the latter. The interest of the party that has suffered damage to receive compensation etc. may however lead to another conclusion. Too much emphasis on the interest of the party that has suffered damage to receive compensation may on the other hand result in a too strict liability for the temporary-work agency. In addition, when the party that has suffered damage is the user company, the interest of preventing damage may conflict with certain interests regarding the fulfillment of the contractual obligations of the temporary-work agency. The results of my study show however, that the balance between the different interests overall is justifiable, although the liability of the temporary-work agency, for damage caused by a temporary agency worker, may be too strict. (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- I svensk rätt åläggs arbetsgivare principalansvar för skada som dennes arbetstagare vållat i tjänsten. Det innebär att arbetsgivaren är ansvarig för hans eller hennes arbetstagares handlingar, även om arbetsgivaren inte varit vårdslös. Bestämmelsen återfinns i 3 kap. 1 § SkL. Uthyrning av arbetstagare har blivit alltmer vanligt i Sverige, vilket kan leda till osäkerhet gällande vilken arbetsgivare som är ansvarig i de fall den uthyrda arbetstagaren vållat skada. Jag har därmed valt att undersöka huruvida det uthyrande företaget eller det inhyrande företaget ansvarar för skada vållad av en uthyrd arbetstagare och kritiskt granska de bakomliggande intressena.
Huruvida på det uthyrande företaget eller det inhyrande företaget ansvarar för... (More) - I svensk rätt åläggs arbetsgivare principalansvar för skada som dennes arbetstagare vållat i tjänsten. Det innebär att arbetsgivaren är ansvarig för hans eller hennes arbetstagares handlingar, även om arbetsgivaren inte varit vårdslös. Bestämmelsen återfinns i 3 kap. 1 § SkL. Uthyrning av arbetstagare har blivit alltmer vanligt i Sverige, vilket kan leda till osäkerhet gällande vilken arbetsgivare som är ansvarig i de fall den uthyrda arbetstagaren vållat skada. Jag har därmed valt att undersöka huruvida det uthyrande företaget eller det inhyrande företaget ansvarar för skada vållad av en uthyrd arbetstagare och kritiskt granska de bakomliggande intressena.
Huruvida på det uthyrande företaget eller det inhyrande företaget ansvarar för skada vållad av den uthyrda arbetstagaren beror vanligtvis på vilket av de två företagen som kontrollerar och organiserar den uthyrda arbetstagarens arbete. Men om den uthyrda arbetstagaren inte inlemmats i det inhyrande företagets verksamhet beaktas dock andra faktorer istället, så som möjligheten att teckna ansvarsförsäkring. Vidare ansvarar det uthyrande företaget för skada i kontraktsförhållande som den uthyrda arbetstagaren vållat om det finns ett samband mellan avtalet och den skadevållande handlingen.
Ett flertal intressen påverkas av lagstiftningen i fråga och tolkningen av densamma. Dessa intressen är emellertid i viss utsträckning oförenliga. För att exempelvis förebygga skador är det rimligt att det företag som har möjlighet att kontrollera och övervaka arbetstagarens arbete ansvarar för skada som den senare vållat. Den skadelidandes intresse av att få ersättning kan emellertid föranleda en annan slutsats. För stor tonvikt vid den skadelidandes intresse kan å andra sidan resultera i att det uthyrande företagets ansvar blir alltför långtgående. I de fall det inhyrande företaget drabbas av skada, kan intresset av att förebygga person- och sakskada komma i konflikt med vissa intressen rörande uppfyllelsen av det uthyrande företagets kontraktsrättsliga förpliktelser. Mina resultat visar att avvägningen mellan de olika intressena i stort är motiverad, även om det uthyrande företagets ansvar, för skada vållad av den uthyrda arbetstagaren, möjligen är för långtgående. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/3800446
- author
- Carlström Ernst, Alexander LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20131
- year
- 2013
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Skadeståndsrätt, principalansvar, arbetstagare, arbetsgivare, uthyrande företag, inhyrande företag.
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 3800446
- date added to LUP
- 2013-10-18 12:53:56
- date last changed
- 2013-10-18 12:53:56
@misc{3800446,
abstract = {{Employers are, in Swedish law, vicariously liable for damage caused by their employees while on duty. This means that the employer will be held liable for the conduct of his or her employees, even though the employer hasn’t been negligent. The provision is to be found in chapter 3 § 1 in the Swedish Tort Liability Act. Temporary agency work is however becoming increasingly common in Sweden, which may lead to some uncertainty regarding which employer who is liable for damage caused by a temporary agency worker. I’ve therefore chosen to investigate whether the temporary-work agency or the user company is liable for damage caused by a temporary agency worker and critically examine the underlying interests.
Whether the temporary-work agency or the user company is liable for damage caused by the temporary agency worker normally depends on which of the two companies that is able to control and supervise the employee’s work. However, if the temporary agency worker isn’t incorporated into the organization of the user company, other factors such as the possibility of taking out a liability insurance will be taken into consideration instead. Furthermore, a temporary-work agency is liable for damage in contractual relations caused by a temporary agency worker if there is a connection between the contract and the tortious act.
There’re several interests that are affected by the legislation in question and the interpretation of it. However, these interests are to a certain extent incompatible. For instance, in order to prevent material damage or personal injury it’s reasonable that the company which is able to control and supervise the employee’s work should be liable for injury and material damage caused by the latter. The interest of the party that has suffered damage to receive compensation etc. may however lead to another conclusion. Too much emphasis on the interest of the party that has suffered damage to receive compensation may on the other hand result in a too strict liability for the temporary-work agency. In addition, when the party that has suffered damage is the user company, the interest of preventing damage may conflict with certain interests regarding the fulfillment of the contractual obligations of the temporary-work agency. The results of my study show however, that the balance between the different interests overall is justifiable, although the liability of the temporary-work agency, for damage caused by a temporary agency worker, may be too strict.}},
author = {{Carlström Ernst, Alexander}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Principalansvar - uthyrning och utlåning av arbetstagare}},
year = {{2013}},
}