Advanced

Rätten till omprövning vid personskada

Spiropoulos, Alexandra LU (2015) JUR091 20151
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
I 1975 års skadeståndslag införde man begreppet ekonomisk invaliditet. Syftet med förändringen var att ersättning i personskadeärenden skulle bestämmas så exakt som möjligt. Skadestånd för framtida inkomstförlust skulle inte längre uppskattas efter en schablon utan den skulle beräknas för att motsvara den verkliga förlusten. Skadelidande skulle få full kompensation för sin ekonomiska förlust utan att över- eller underkompenseras. En förutsättning för att den skulle fungera var att man fick möjlighet att ompröva beslutet om ekonomisk invaliditet ifall utvecklingen tog en helt annan riktning än den som bestämdes vid skadeståndets bestämmande. Möjligheten att begära omprövning enligt skadeståndslagen vidgades 2001 då rätten till omprövning,... (More)
I 1975 års skadeståndslag införde man begreppet ekonomisk invaliditet. Syftet med förändringen var att ersättning i personskadeärenden skulle bestämmas så exakt som möjligt. Skadestånd för framtida inkomstförlust skulle inte längre uppskattas efter en schablon utan den skulle beräknas för att motsvara den verkliga förlusten. Skadelidande skulle få full kompensation för sin ekonomiska förlust utan att över- eller underkompenseras. En förutsättning för att den skulle fungera var att man fick möjlighet att ompröva beslutet om ekonomisk invaliditet ifall utvecklingen tog en helt annan riktning än den som bestämdes vid skadeståndets bestämmande. Möjligheten att begära omprövning enligt skadeståndslagen vidgades 2001 då rätten till omprövning, av skadestånd för kostnader och ideell skada vid personskada, infördes.

De viktigaste kriterierna för att omprövningsrätten skulle vara tillämplig var först och främst orsakssamband mellan olyckan och skadeståndskravet. Därefter skulle skadeståndet vara avslutad genom dom eller avtal. Slutligen krävdes det väsentlig förändring av förhållanden som låg till grund för skadeståndets bestämmande.

Lagstiftaren ville att rätten till omprövning av skadestånd skulle vara restriktiv och införde därmed väsentlighetsrekvisitet. En säkerhetsventil i personskadeärenden där en oförutsedd ändring gick utöver den gräns som vi, som samhälle, rimligen kunde acceptera. Tanken var inte att skadelidande skulle begära omprövning efter varje förändrig som skedde i förhållande till skadeståndets bestämmande utan det skulle ske i undantagsfall. Det var viktigt att den skadeståndsskyldige visste vad som förväntades och att man fick ett avslut. Vidare nämndes även försäkringsmässiga fördelar med att kunna beräkna kostnaden för en skada och belasta rätt försäkringskollektiv.

Domstolarna anser att principen om att skadelidande ska försättas i samma ekonomiska situation som om skadan inte hade inträffat väger tyngre än de ekonomiska motivuttalanden som lagstiftaren gjort. Rättspraxis på området har de senaste åren gjort det lättare för skadelidande att begära omprövning.
Framförallt är det två domar från Högsta Domstolen som sätter riktlinjerna om hur väsentlig ändring ska tolkas.

HD avgjorde till de skadelidandes fördel när de fastställde att väsentlighetsrekvisitet var uppfyllt så snart samordningsförmånerna understeg 90% av inkomstunderlaget. Vidare skulle förlusten beräknas genom kumulation, vilket i förlängningen innebär att de flesta med pågående livräntor kommer för eller senare ha rätt till omprövning eftersom samordningsförmånerna kommer understiga 90% av inkomstunderlaget. Slutligen uttalade HD att en förändring i arbetsförmåga från hel till halv är en sådan oförutsedd väsentlig ändring oavsett om förändringen har någon påverkan på ersättningsbeslutet.
Trots dessa domar som vägledning får man ändå anse att vad som är väsentlig ändring får fortfarande avgöras från fall till fall. Varken lagstiftning eller rättspraxis ger oss uttömmande svar för samtliga tänkbara situationer. (Less)
Abstract
In 1975 the concept of economic invalidity was introduced in tort law. The purpose of the change was to determine the compensation in personal injury cases as accurately as possible. Damages for future loss of income would no longer be appreciated after a lump but it would be calculated to be equal to the actual loss. Injured parties would receive full compensation for their financial loss without being over-or under compensated. A prerequisite was that you had a right to request review of the economic invalidity if development took a completely different direction than the one determined by the actual determination. The ability to request review under the tort law was expanded in 2001 when the right to request review of damages, for... (More)
In 1975 the concept of economic invalidity was introduced in tort law. The purpose of the change was to determine the compensation in personal injury cases as accurately as possible. Damages for future loss of income would no longer be appreciated after a lump but it would be calculated to be equal to the actual loss. Injured parties would receive full compensation for their financial loss without being over-or under compensated. A prerequisite was that you had a right to request review of the economic invalidity if development took a completely different direction than the one determined by the actual determination. The ability to request review under the tort law was expanded in 2001 when the right to request review of damages, for expenses and non-material damage in personal injury, was introduced.

The most important criteria for the right to review damages was primarily a causal link between the accident and the claims for damages. Then the damages must have been terminated by judgment or agreement. Finally, it required essential change of circumstances which formed the basis of the actual determination.

The legislature wanted the right to review of the damages would be restrictive and thus introduced criterion of essential change. A safety valve in personal injury cases in which an unforeseen change went beyond the limit to which we, as a society, could reasonably accept. The idea was not that the injured party would seek review after each change that took place in relation to the actual determination but it would be done in exceptional cases. It was important that the liable for damages knew what was expected and could have a closure. In addition, they also mentioned the insurance benefits of being able to calculate the cost of an injury and debit the correct collective insurance.

The judiciary considers that the principle that the victim should be put in the same economic situation as if the damage had not occurred outweigh the economic rationale statements which the legislature made. Case law in this area has in recent years made it easier for the injured parties to request review. In particular, the two judgments from the Supreme Court that sets guidelines on how essential change is to be interpreted.

The Supreme Court settled to the injured parties advantage when they ruled that essential change was fulfilled as soon as the benefits of coordination was below 90% of the income base. Furthermore, the loss is calculated by accumulation, which, in turn, means that most people with ongoing annuities will sooner or later be entitled to review because the benefits of coordination will be less than 90% of the income base. Finally the Court pronounced to a change in work ability from full to half is such an unexpected essential change whether the change has no effect on the compensation decision.

Despite these convictions as guidance, we must nevertheless take the view that what is essential change may still be decided on a case by case basis. Neither legislation or case law gives us the full answer for all possible situations (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Spiropoulos, Alexandra LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
The right to review in the case of personal injury
course
JUR091 20151
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
omprövning, personskada, Skadeståndsrätt
language
Swedish
id
7450255
date added to LUP
2015-06-25 18:56:33
date last changed
2015-06-25 18:56:33
@misc{7450255,
  abstract     = {In 1975 the concept of economic invalidity was introduced in tort law. The purpose of the change was to determine the compensation in personal injury cases as accurately as possible. Damages for future loss of income would no longer be appreciated after a lump but it would be calculated to be equal to the actual loss. Injured parties would receive full compensation for their financial loss without being over-or under compensated. A prerequisite was that you had a right to request review of the economic invalidity if development took a completely different direction than the one determined by the actual determination. The ability to request review under the tort law was expanded in 2001 when the right to request review of damages, for expenses and non-material damage in personal injury, was introduced. 

The most important criteria for the right to review damages was primarily a causal link between the accident and the claims for damages. Then the damages must have been terminated by judgment or agreement. Finally, it required essential change of circumstances which formed the basis of the actual determination.

The legislature wanted the right to review of the damages would be restrictive and thus introduced criterion of essential change. A safety valve in personal injury cases in which an unforeseen change went beyond the limit to which we, as a society, could reasonably accept. The idea was not that the injured party would seek review after each change that took place in relation to the actual determination but it would be done in exceptional cases. It was important that the liable for damages knew what was expected and could have a closure. In addition, they also mentioned the insurance benefits of being able to calculate the cost of an injury and debit the correct collective insurance. 

The judiciary considers that the principle that the victim should be put in the same economic situation as if the damage had not occurred outweigh the economic rationale statements which the legislature made. Case law in this area has in recent years made it easier for the injured parties to request review. In particular, the two judgments from the Supreme Court that sets guidelines on how essential change is to be interpreted.

The Supreme Court settled to the injured parties advantage when they ruled that essential change was fulfilled as soon as the benefits of coordination was below 90% of the income base. Furthermore, the loss is calculated by accumulation, which, in turn, means that most people with ongoing annuities will sooner or later be entitled to review because the benefits of coordination will be less than 90% of the income base. Finally the Court pronounced to a change in work ability from full to half is such an unexpected essential change whether the change has no effect on the compensation decision.

Despite these convictions as guidance, we must nevertheless take the view that what is essential change may still be decided on a case by case basis. Neither legislation or case law gives us the full answer for all possible situations},
  author       = {Spiropoulos, Alexandra},
  keyword      = {omprövning,personskada,Skadeståndsrätt},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Rätten till omprövning vid personskada},
  year         = {2015},
}