Advanced

Vårdnadshavares strikta skadeståndsansvar – en kritisk granskning av ansvaret och dess processrättsliga konsekvenser

Olsson, Caroline LU (2015) LAGM01 20151
Department of Law
Abstract
Summary

In September 2010 an amendment of law was made which meant that legal guardians, in addition to their already existing supervisory responsibility, became subject to strict liability for damages caused by their children through a criminal offence. The aim of the regulation is to decrease juvenile delinquency. The purpose of this thesis is to investigate and critically analyze the strict liability for legal guardians in 3 ch. 5 § the Tort Liability Act and to account for some procedural aspects relevant to the adjudication of the regulation on strict liability.

In the light of what has been presented in the thesis my conclusion is that the scope of the strict liability for legal guardians, in spite of a maximum sum per loss... (More)
Summary

In September 2010 an amendment of law was made which meant that legal guardians, in addition to their already existing supervisory responsibility, became subject to strict liability for damages caused by their children through a criminal offence. The aim of the regulation is to decrease juvenile delinquency. The purpose of this thesis is to investigate and critically analyze the strict liability for legal guardians in 3 ch. 5 § the Tort Liability Act and to account for some procedural aspects relevant to the adjudication of the regulation on strict liability.

In the light of what has been presented in the thesis my conclusion is that the scope of the strict liability for legal guardians, in spite of a maximum sum per loss event and pure economic losses being exempted, is extensive. In several respects the law is unclear regarding the prerequisites for the liability, especially the meaning of the term loss event and when rights of recourse exist. The regulation, in my opinion, is in need of clarifications in order for its scope to be predictable for legal guardians.

3 ch. 6 § and 6 ch. 2 § the Tort Liability Act is applied restrictively and appears to demand quite a lot concerning the circumstances legal guardians have to invoke in order to run a successful defense based on apportionment. Existing case law is not entirely uniform, which results in a lack of foreseeability as to how the regulation of apportionment is being applied.

In my thesis several procedural issues have been identified in connection to the application of the strict liability for legal guardians. Most common is for the private claim made towards the legal guardians to be in joint processing with the criminal offence committed by their child. Which rules to apply from the Code of Judicial Procedure in joint processing, is to a certain extent ambiguous. This results in doubt regarding processing in the absence of the legal guardians, an obligation to inform the legal guardians about processing in their absence and when service of a summons is to be completed. Legal guardians can further on have to render compensations higher than the set maximum sum, even though the damage refers to the same loss event. This happens because of the burden of pleading is placed on the legal guardians. Legal guardians may also have to pay compensation although their child is found not to have committed a criminal offence. The reason for this, amongst others, is the rules on leave of appeal – which means that the processing for the legal guardians and the processing for the child not necessarily is connected. Finally, the possibilities for the legal guardians and the person who suffered loss, to access legal assistance differs essentially. Legal guardians are rarely represented by an attorney, a circumstance that complicates the possibilities for legal guardians to create an understanding of their strict liability, of the regulation of apportionment and of procedural aspects that affects their strict liability. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
Sammanfattning

I september 2010 trädde en lagändring i kraft som innebar att vårdnadshavare, utöver sitt redan befintliga tillsynsansvar, blev strikt skadeståndsansansvariga för skador som deras barn vållat genom en brottslig handling. Regleringen ska verka preventivt och minska ungdomsbrottsligheten. Syftet med min uppsats har varit att utreda och kritiskt granska det strikta skadeståndsansvar som 3 kap. 5 § SkL ålägger vårdnadshavare samt att redogöra för några processrättsliga aspekter relevanta vid tillämpningen av regleringen om deras strikta ansvar.

Mot bakgrund av vad om framkommit i uppsatsen drar jag slutsatsen att vårdnadshavarnas skadeståndsansvar, trots en beloppsbegränsning per skadehändelse och trots att rena... (More)
Sammanfattning

I september 2010 trädde en lagändring i kraft som innebar att vårdnadshavare, utöver sitt redan befintliga tillsynsansvar, blev strikt skadeståndsansansvariga för skador som deras barn vållat genom en brottslig handling. Regleringen ska verka preventivt och minska ungdomsbrottsligheten. Syftet med min uppsats har varit att utreda och kritiskt granska det strikta skadeståndsansvar som 3 kap. 5 § SkL ålägger vårdnadshavare samt att redogöra för några processrättsliga aspekter relevanta vid tillämpningen av regleringen om deras strikta ansvar.

Mot bakgrund av vad om framkommit i uppsatsen drar jag slutsatsen att vårdnadshavarnas skadeståndsansvar, trots en beloppsbegränsning per skadehändelse och trots att rena förmögenhetsskador uteslutits, är omfattande. I flera avseenden är regleringen oklar rörande förutsättningarna för ansvaret, särskilt innebörden av begreppet skadehändelse och när regressrätt föreligger. Regleringen är enligt min mening i behov av tydliggöranden för att dess omfattning ska bli förutsägbar för vårdnadshavarna.

Jämkningsmöjligheterna enligt 3 kap. 6 § SkL och enligt 6 kap. 2 § SkL tillämpas restriktivt och det synes krävas en hel del av vårdnadshavarna beträffande vad de åberopar för grundande omständigheter om de ska vinna framgång med en talan om jämkning. Befintlig praxis är i flera avseenden inte enhetlig, vilket medför att förutsägbarheten beträffande hur jämkningsbestämmelserna tillämpas kan kritiseras.

I uppsatsen identifieras ett flertal processrättsliga problem i samband med tillämpningen av vårdnadshavarnas strikta ansvar. Vanligast är att det enskilda anspråket, som riktats mot vårdnadshavarna, handläggs tillsammans med det brottmål som barnet står åtalat för. Vid gemensam handläggning är det i viss mån oklart när målet ska följa RB:s regler för brottmål respektive för tvistemål. Detta medför betänkligheter kring utevarohandläggning, informationsskyldighet om utevarohandläggning och när delgivning av stämning ska ske. Vidare kan vårdnadshavare komma att behöva erlägga ersättning högre än beloppsbegränsningen för en och samma skadehändelse, då de har åberopsbördan för att de redan har betalt en femtedels prisbasbelopp för aktuell skadehändelse. Vårdnadshavare kan även komma att behöva betala skadestånd trots att barnet inte anses ha begått en brottslig handling. Detta beror bland annat på reglerna om prövningstillstånd, som medför att processen för vårdnadshavare och processen för barnet inte behöver följas åt. Slutligen skiljer sig förutsättningarna väsentligen åt för den skadelidande och för vårdnadshavarna att erhålla stöd vid utformningen och framförande av talan. Endast sällan är vårdnadshavare företrädda av ombud, vilket borde försvåra för vårdnadshavare att skapa förståelse för deras strikta ansvar, vilka möjligheter de har att få skadeståndet jämkat och hur processrättsliga aspekter kan påverka ansvaret. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Olsson, Caroline LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
The strict liability of legal guardians – a critical analysis of the liability and its procedural consequences
course
LAGM01 20151
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Skadeståndsrätt
language
Swedish
id
5431963
date added to LUP
2015-06-16 17:01:56
date last changed
2015-06-18 14:04:24
@misc{5431963,
  abstract     = {Summary

In September 2010 an amendment of law was made which meant that legal guardians, in addition to their already existing supervisory responsibility, became subject to strict liability for damages caused by their children through a criminal offence. The aim of the regulation is to decrease juvenile delinquency. The purpose of this thesis is to investigate and critically analyze the strict liability for legal guardians in 3 ch. 5 § the Tort Liability Act and to account for some procedural aspects relevant to the adjudication of the regulation on strict liability.

In the light of what has been presented in the thesis my conclusion is that the scope of the strict liability for legal guardians, in spite of a maximum sum per loss event and pure economic losses being exempted, is extensive. In several respects the law is unclear regarding the prerequisites for the liability, especially the meaning of the term loss event and when rights of recourse exist. The regulation, in my opinion, is in need of clarifications in order for its scope to be predictable for legal guardians. 

3 ch. 6 § and 6 ch. 2 § the Tort Liability Act is applied restrictively and appears to demand quite a lot concerning the circumstances legal guardians have to invoke in order to run a successful defense based on apportionment. Existing case law is not entirely uniform, which results in a lack of foreseeability as to how the regulation of apportionment is being applied. 

In my thesis several procedural issues have been identified in connection to the application of the strict liability for legal guardians. Most common is for the private claim made towards the legal guardians to be in joint processing with the criminal offence committed by their child. Which rules to apply from the Code of Judicial Procedure in joint processing, is to a certain extent ambiguous. This results in doubt regarding processing in the absence of the legal guardians, an obligation to inform the legal guardians about processing in their absence and when service of a summons is to be completed. Legal guardians can further on have to render compensations higher than the set maximum sum, even though the damage refers to the same loss event. This happens because of the burden of pleading is placed on the legal guardians. Legal guardians may also have to pay compensation although their child is found not to have committed a criminal offence. The reason for this, amongst others, is the rules on leave of appeal – which means that the processing for the legal guardians and the processing for the child not necessarily is connected. Finally, the possibilities for the legal guardians and the person who suffered loss, to access legal assistance differs essentially. Legal guardians are rarely represented by an attorney, a circumstance that complicates the possibilities for legal guardians to create an understanding of their strict liability, of the regulation of apportionment and of procedural aspects that affects their strict liability.},
  author       = {Olsson, Caroline},
  keyword      = {Skadeståndsrätt},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Vårdnadshavares strikta skadeståndsansvar – en kritisk granskning av ansvaret och dess processrättsliga konsekvenser},
  year         = {2015},
}