Advanced

Skälen bakom införandet av ett strikt skadeståndsansvar - En jämförelse mellan lagstiftarens och rättstillämparens motiv

Fazlinovic, Lejla LU (2016) JURM02 20161
Department of Law
Abstract
Strict liability implies liability without fault. Therefore, the strict liability is a deviation from the fault liability that has been the general rule in Swedish tort law for a long time. Strict liability is interventional but has according to the legislator been justified in some cases. In those cases, the strict liability has been codified. Case law of the Swedish Supreme Court has shown that the adjudicator has also been able to impose strict liability, without basis in the legal provision; however, it is uncertain under what prerequisites this can be done.

In this essay, I will examine when strict liability can be imposed without basis in the legal provision. I will be reviewing the similarities and differences between the... (More)
Strict liability implies liability without fault. Therefore, the strict liability is a deviation from the fault liability that has been the general rule in Swedish tort law for a long time. Strict liability is interventional but has according to the legislator been justified in some cases. In those cases, the strict liability has been codified. Case law of the Swedish Supreme Court has shown that the adjudicator has also been able to impose strict liability, without basis in the legal provision; however, it is uncertain under what prerequisites this can be done.

In this essay, I will examine when strict liability can be imposed without basis in the legal provision. I will be reviewing the similarities and differences between the legislators’ and the adjudicators’ grounds for an imposition of strict liability. Furthermore, I will investigate to what extent the adjudicator has followed the legal grounds and the reasoning that has been set out by the legislator when imposing strict liability.

The conclusion of this thesis is depicted through the following statement; the legislator has in most cases imposed strict liability on an operator for an activity that is considered dangerous. This has in my opinion been the case when an activity has been extraordinary, has caused a significantly high risk of damages, or when the potential damages caused by the activity can become very serious and extensive. The grounds for the imposition stem from legal-technical, economical and reparative aspects, but have also been based on thoughts about prevention and neighborly responsibilities.

When the adjudicator has imposed strict liability without basis in the legal provisions, the grounds for this have to a large extent corresponded with the grounds set out by the legislator for an imposition of strict liability. Strict liability has been imposed partly for dangerous activities with regard to the risk that the activity carries, and partly for operations that are not considered dangerous but can cause very serious and extensive damages due to the permanent risk that exists. Therefore, the reasoning has conformed with the legislators’ in these cases as well. In addition, other grounds have presented regarding legal-technicality, economical reasons and prevention, which have also been considered by the legislator. Although an imposition of strict liability requires for restrictiveness, the adjudicators’ decision to impose such liability has been justified in regards to the legal grounds that have been the basis of such an imposition by the legislator. The adjudicator has followed the reasoning set out by the legislator for imposing strict liability, both in cases where the present activity has been a dangerous one, and in those cases where the activity has not been considered dangerous. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
Ett rent strikt ansvar, eller ett strikt ansvar, innebär ett ansvar oberoende av vållande. Det utgör därmed ett avsteg från culpaprincipen som sedan en lång tid tillbaka har varit huvudregel i svensk skadeståndsrätt. Ett strikt ansvar är ingripande men har av lagstiftaren i vissa fall ansetts motiverat och då införts i lag. Av HD:s praxis framgår att ett handlande kan åläggas med ett strikt skadeståndsansvar trots att detta saknar stöd i lag. Det är dock oklart under vilka förutsättningar detta kan ske.

I denna uppsats utreds när ett strikt ansvar kan aktualiseras. Likheter och skillnader mellan lagstiftarens respektive rättstillämparens grunder för åläggande av ett strikt ansvar undersöks. Därutöver utreds i vad mån rättstillämparen... (More)
Ett rent strikt ansvar, eller ett strikt ansvar, innebär ett ansvar oberoende av vållande. Det utgör därmed ett avsteg från culpaprincipen som sedan en lång tid tillbaka har varit huvudregel i svensk skadeståndsrätt. Ett strikt ansvar är ingripande men har av lagstiftaren i vissa fall ansetts motiverat och då införts i lag. Av HD:s praxis framgår att ett handlande kan åläggas med ett strikt skadeståndsansvar trots att detta saknar stöd i lag. Det är dock oklart under vilka förutsättningar detta kan ske.

I denna uppsats utreds när ett strikt ansvar kan aktualiseras. Likheter och skillnader mellan lagstiftarens respektive rättstillämparens grunder för åläggande av ett strikt ansvar undersöks. Därutöver utreds i vad mån rättstillämparen har följt de grunder och resonemang som har anförts av lagstiftaren vid införandet av strikt ansvar.

I uppsatsen konkluderas att lagstiftaren i de flesta fall har infört ett strikt ansvar för verksamheter som betecknats som farliga. En verksamhet har enligt mig ansetts vara farlig då den är extraordinär, medför en särskilt hög risk för skador eller då skadorna den medför kan bli väldigt allvarliga och omfattande. Grunder för införande av strikt ansvar i lag för farlig verksamhet har varit rättstekniska skäl, billighetsskäl och reparationsskäl. Lagstiftaren har i vissa fall inte fört resonemang om farligheten hos en verksamhet, men ändå infört ett strikt ansvar för dessa. De skäl som i dessa fall legat till grund för införandet av ett strikt ansvar har varit rättstekniska skäl, billighetsskäl och reparationsskäl, men även preventionsskäl och grannelagrättsliga förhållanden.

När rättstillämparen har ålagt ett strikt ansvar utan stöd i lag har grunderna för detta motsvarat lagstiftarens grunder för införandet av ett strikt ansvar. Dels har strikt ansvar ålagts för farlig verksamhet med hänsyn till den risk verksamheten medför, dels har den verksamhet som inte kunnat betecknas som farlig ålagts strikt ansvar med hänsyn till att det förelegat en permanent risk för skador som kunde bli väldigt omfattande. Därmed har resonemanget även i dessa fall överensstämt med lagstiftarens. Därutöver har olika skäl anförts rörande bland annat rättsteknik, billighet och prevention, något som också har beaktats av lagstiftaren. Även om en restriktivitet vid åläggande av strikt ansvar utan stöd i lag bör beaktas har rättstillämparens åläggande av strikt ansvar varit motiverat med hänsyn till de skäl som legat bakom ett sådant åläggande. Rättstillämparen har följt lagstiftarens resonemang för åläggande av ett strikt ansvar, både när detta gjorts för farlig verksamhet och den verksamhet som inte kan anses vara farlig. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Fazlinovic, Lejla LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
The legal basis for an imposition of strict liability - A comparison between the grounds put forward by the legislator and the adjudicator
course
JURM02 20161
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Skadeståndsrätt, Förmögenhetsrätt, Strikt ansvar, Tort Law, Strict Liability
language
Swedish
id
8888687
date added to LUP
2016-09-08 08:52:33
date last changed
2016-09-08 08:52:33
@misc{8888687,
  abstract     = {Strict liability implies liability without fault. Therefore, the strict liability is a deviation from the fault liability that has been the general rule in Swedish tort law for a long time. Strict liability is interventional but has according to the legislator been justified in some cases. In those cases, the strict liability has been codified. Case law of the Swedish Supreme Court has shown that the adjudicator has also been able to impose strict liability, without basis in the legal provision; however, it is uncertain under what prerequisites this can be done. 

In this essay, I will examine when strict liability can be imposed without basis in the legal provision. I will be reviewing the similarities and differences between the legislators’ and the adjudicators’ grounds for an imposition of strict liability. Furthermore, I will investigate to what extent the adjudicator has followed the legal grounds and the reasoning that has been set out by the legislator when imposing strict liability.

The conclusion of this thesis is depicted through the following statement; the legislator has in most cases imposed strict liability on an operator for an activity that is considered dangerous. This has in my opinion been the case when an activity has been extraordinary, has caused a significantly high risk of damages, or when the potential damages caused by the activity can become very serious and extensive. The grounds for the imposition stem from legal-technical, economical and reparative aspects, but have also been based on thoughts about prevention and neighborly responsibilities.

When the adjudicator has imposed strict liability without basis in the legal provisions, the grounds for this have to a large extent corresponded with the grounds set out by the legislator for an imposition of strict liability. Strict liability has been imposed partly for dangerous activities with regard to the risk that the activity carries, and partly for operations that are not considered dangerous but can cause very serious and extensive damages due to the permanent risk that exists. Therefore, the reasoning has conformed with the legislators’ in these cases as well. In addition, other grounds have presented regarding legal-technicality, economical reasons and prevention, which have also been considered by the legislator. Although an imposition of strict liability requires for restrictiveness, the adjudicators’ decision to impose such liability has been justified in regards to the legal grounds that have been the basis of such an imposition by the legislator. The adjudicator has followed the reasoning set out by the legislator for imposing strict liability, both in cases where the present activity has been a dangerous one, and in those cases where the activity has not been considered dangerous.},
  author       = {Fazlinovic, Lejla},
  keyword      = {Skadeståndsrätt,Förmögenhetsrätt,Strikt ansvar,Tort Law,Strict Liability},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Skälen bakom införandet av ett strikt skadeståndsansvar - En jämförelse mellan lagstiftarens och rättstillämparens motiv},
  year         = {2016},
}