Solidariskt skadestånd, regressrätt och föräldrars strikta ansvar
(2014) JURM02 20151Department of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Solidariskt ansvar har under lång tid tillämpats i Svensk lag i fall då flera personer ska svara för ett skadestånd. Det solidariska ansvaret innebär att en skadelidande kan kräva ut hela skadeståndet från endera skadevållaren. För att detta inte ska leda till orimliga slutsatser finns det dock tillfällen vid jämkade skadestånd då det solidariska skadeståndet ej används. I vilka jämkningsfall ett skadestånd ej blir solidariskt är dock fortfarande oklart.
Det solidariska ansvaret syftar till att skydda den skadelidande parten men har som bieffekt att domslut i skadeståndsmål inte fattar beslut om den slutgiltiga fördelningen av skadeståndsansvaret. Av denna anledning finns det en regressrätt mellan solidariskt skadeståndsskyldiga. Den... (More) - Solidariskt ansvar har under lång tid tillämpats i Svensk lag i fall då flera personer ska svara för ett skadestånd. Det solidariska ansvaret innebär att en skadelidande kan kräva ut hela skadeståndet från endera skadevållaren. För att detta inte ska leda till orimliga slutsatser finns det dock tillfällen vid jämkade skadestånd då det solidariska skadeståndet ej används. I vilka jämkningsfall ett skadestånd ej blir solidariskt är dock fortfarande oklart.
Det solidariska ansvaret syftar till att skydda den skadelidande parten men har som bieffekt att domslut i skadeståndsmål inte fattar beslut om den slutgiltiga fördelningen av skadeståndsansvaret. Av denna anledning finns det en regressrätt mellan solidariskt skadeståndsskyldiga. Den slutgiltiga fördelningen av ett solidariskt skadestånd ska ta hänsyn till en skälighetsbedömning. Skälighetsbedömningen och vissa grunder som denna kan bygga på slogs fast i ett rättsfall från 1937. Regressrätt har dock, trots flera utredningar på området, ännu inte reglerats genom lag. Regressrätten har dessutom endast sparsamt behandlats i praxis sedan 1937 och diskussionen i doktrinen har varit begränsad. Detta har lett till att det föreligger stor oklarhet kring vad som är relevant att ta hänsyn till vid en skälighetsbedömning i ett regressfall, samt om samma grunder ska ha relevans i alla fall.
Det område där regressrätten har behandlats mer genomgående inom SkL är på principalansvarets område. En arbetsgivare har en begränsad möjlighet till regressrätt mot en anställd genom SkL 4 kap 1 §. Denna specifika regressrätt har klarlagts klart mer än andra typer av regress.
Problematiken med det i vissa fall bristfälliga regelverket kring solidariskt ansvar och regressansvar har länge inte varit alltför problematisk då försäkringsbolag i regel föredragit att inte regressa. Det finns dock anledning att misstänka att en diskussion kring dessa ämnen kan komma att uppstå till följd av att mål om föräldrars principalansvar börjar tas upp i högre instanser.
År 2010 infördes en regel i SkL som gjorde föräldrar strikt ansvariga för deras barns skadestånd. Denna regel ger upphov till många nya frågeställningar. Först och främst infördes den nya termen skadehändelser. Betydelsen av termen är i viss mån oklar. Det är också oklart hur skälighetsbedömningen vid regressmål mellan föräldrar ska te sig. Det kan också uppstå oklara regressrättsliga situationer om barn begår brott i grupp och föräldrar till flera olika barn därmed blir skyldiga att betala skadestånd. Vilken relation dessa föräldrar har gentemot varandra är ännu i princip outforskat.
I min analys ger jag förslag på hur de problem jag identifierat borde lösas och hur jag anser att det solidariska skadeståndet, regressrätten och föräldrars principalansvar borde tillämpas. (Less) - Abstract
- Joint and several liability has been used in Sweden for a long time when several people are held responsible for damages. Joint and several liability entails that a creditor can demand full compensation from any of the defendants. In order for this rule not to result in absurd consequences, there is an exception where mitigation of damages can lead to several liability instead. However, to what extent a mitigation of damages will lead to several liability is as of yet unclear.
The practice of joint and several liability is intended to protect the creditor. A side-effect of the rule is that the final distribution of the cost of the damages is not decided on in the ruling of the damages claim. Because of this there is a right for a... (More) - Joint and several liability has been used in Sweden for a long time when several people are held responsible for damages. Joint and several liability entails that a creditor can demand full compensation from any of the defendants. In order for this rule not to result in absurd consequences, there is an exception where mitigation of damages can lead to several liability instead. However, to what extent a mitigation of damages will lead to several liability is as of yet unclear.
The practice of joint and several liability is intended to protect the creditor. A side-effect of the rule is that the final distribution of the cost of the damages is not decided on in the ruling of the damages claim. Because of this there is a right for a defendant to pursue other obligors called “regress”. The final distribution of the cost of the damages is based on what is reasonable. This rule was decided on in a case in 1937. In the same case the court put forth a number of circumstances that could be relevant when considering what is reasonable. The rule has since then not been included in Swedish law even though several commissions has recommended it to be. On top of that the right of regress has only been sparsely touched upon in legal doctrine. As a result of this there is a great uncertainty as to which circumstances are relevant and if the same circumstances apply to all cases.
The one area where the right of regress has been further tested is in the area of principal responsibility. This entails that an employer has a responsibility for the damages caused by his employees and that he only has a limited chance to regress any of his costs against an employee. The specific type of regress that exist with principal responsibility is clearer and does not lend itself to speculation in the same way as other types of regress.
The uncertainty revolving around the rules of joint and several liability and regress has not been all that problematic since insurance companies as a rule prefer not to regress. There is however reason to believe that these subjects can become more relevant when courts start trying cases concerning the new rules on principal parental liability.
In 2010 a new rule on principal parental responsibility for children was added to Swedish law. This new rule evokes many questions. First and foremost the rule includes the new term of damage instance. What this term means is still not completely clear. Another problem arising from the new rule is that it remains unknown what circumstances to consider when it comes to regress between parents. The new rule also results in uncertainty as to what the relation will be between parents of different children who are deemed jointly and severally responsible. Whether these parents can use regress outside of their family is as of yet unknown.
In my analysis I will make suggestions on how the problems that I have identified can be solved and give my opinion on how joint and several liability, regress and principal parental responsibility should be handled. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/5158248
- author
- Ramel, Gustaf LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- Joint and several liability, regress and principal parental responsibility
- course
- JURM02 20151
- year
- 2014
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- Förmögenhetsrätt, Regress, Solidariskt ansvar, Föräldraansvar
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 5158248
- date added to LUP
- 2015-09-30 10:56:42
- date last changed
- 2017-01-27 15:51:21
@misc{5158248,
abstract = {{Joint and several liability has been used in Sweden for a long time when several people are held responsible for damages. Joint and several liability entails that a creditor can demand full compensation from any of the defendants. In order for this rule not to result in absurd consequences, there is an exception where mitigation of damages can lead to several liability instead. However, to what extent a mitigation of damages will lead to several liability is as of yet unclear.
The practice of joint and several liability is intended to protect the creditor. A side-effect of the rule is that the final distribution of the cost of the damages is not decided on in the ruling of the damages claim. Because of this there is a right for a defendant to pursue other obligors called “regress”. The final distribution of the cost of the damages is based on what is reasonable. This rule was decided on in a case in 1937. In the same case the court put forth a number of circumstances that could be relevant when considering what is reasonable. The rule has since then not been included in Swedish law even though several commissions has recommended it to be. On top of that the right of regress has only been sparsely touched upon in legal doctrine. As a result of this there is a great uncertainty as to which circumstances are relevant and if the same circumstances apply to all cases.
The one area where the right of regress has been further tested is in the area of principal responsibility. This entails that an employer has a responsibility for the damages caused by his employees and that he only has a limited chance to regress any of his costs against an employee. The specific type of regress that exist with principal responsibility is clearer and does not lend itself to speculation in the same way as other types of regress.
The uncertainty revolving around the rules of joint and several liability and regress has not been all that problematic since insurance companies as a rule prefer not to regress. There is however reason to believe that these subjects can become more relevant when courts start trying cases concerning the new rules on principal parental liability.
In 2010 a new rule on principal parental responsibility for children was added to Swedish law. This new rule evokes many questions. First and foremost the rule includes the new term of damage instance. What this term means is still not completely clear. Another problem arising from the new rule is that it remains unknown what circumstances to consider when it comes to regress between parents. The new rule also results in uncertainty as to what the relation will be between parents of different children who are deemed jointly and severally responsible. Whether these parents can use regress outside of their family is as of yet unknown.
In my analysis I will make suggestions on how the problems that I have identified can be solved and give my opinion on how joint and several liability, regress and principal parental responsibility should be handled.}},
author = {{Ramel, Gustaf}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Solidariskt skadestånd, regressrätt och föräldrars strikta ansvar}},
year = {{2014}},
}