Advanced

Entreprenörens ansvar för skada som drabbar annat än entreprenaden

Nilsson, Maja LU (2016) JURM02 20162
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Vid entreprenadarbeten kan skador uppstå på olika typer av egendom som inte tillhör själva entreprenadarbetena enligt entreprenadavtalet. Det är viktigt att en entreprenör kan överblicka vilka risker denne tar vid utförande av kontraktsarbeten, inte minst eftersom denne behöver teckna lämpliga försäkringar som täcker riskerna. Skador som drabbar entreprenörens avtalspart, dvs. beställaren, regleras främst i parternas entreprenadavtal. Standardavtalet AB 04 fördelar förutsedda risker och inte sällan åläggs entreprenören ett tungt ansvar. En skada kan även drabba annan än avtalsparterna, dvs. en avtalsrättslig tredjeman. Då får ersättningsfrågan lösas med utomobligatoriska regler. Arbetets syfte är att utreda det ansvar för dessa olika typer... (More)
Vid entreprenadarbeten kan skador uppstå på olika typer av egendom som inte tillhör själva entreprenadarbetena enligt entreprenadavtalet. Det är viktigt att en entreprenör kan överblicka vilka risker denne tar vid utförande av kontraktsarbeten, inte minst eftersom denne behöver teckna lämpliga försäkringar som täcker riskerna. Skador som drabbar entreprenörens avtalspart, dvs. beställaren, regleras främst i parternas entreprenadavtal. Standardavtalet AB 04 fördelar förutsedda risker och inte sällan åläggs entreprenören ett tungt ansvar. En skada kan även drabba annan än avtalsparterna, dvs. en avtalsrättslig tredjeman. Då får ersättningsfrågan lösas med utomobligatoriska regler. Arbetets syfte är att utreda det ansvar för dessa olika typer av skador som en entreprenör kan åläggas. Utredningen tar utgångspunkt i en dom från Hovrätten över Skåne och Blekinge från 2007, där ett antal intressanta rättsfrågor angående entreprenörens ansvar för olika skador hanterades. Utöver ansvarsfrågor berördes i fallet försäkringsfrågor som är kopplade till entreprenörens ansvar. Eftersom de olika spörsmål som uppmärksammas i arbetet är något spretiga används domen som utgångspunkt för analysen.
När det gäller skada på en beställares egendom handlar analysen främst om huruvida entreprenören har orsakat skadan vid utförande av arbete eller inte samt om skadan drabbat beställarens arbete eller annan egendom. Framställningen redogör för den tolkningsmetod som HD har utvecklat på senare tid och i analysen diskuteras hur HD idag hade bedömt frågorna utifrån tolkningsmetoden. När det gäller skada på tredje mans egendom ligger fokus på situationen då entreprenör har orsakat skada på annan entreprenörs egendom. Entreprenörerna står inte i avtalsförhållande med varandra utan endast med beställaren. Ersättningstalan får i sådana fall föras på utomobligatorisk väg enligt allmän skadeståndsrätt. Dock kan AB 04, som gäller mellan respektive entreprenör och beställaren, inte bortses från eftersom det där finns regler som rör en parts ansvar för underentreprenörer anlitade av denne. Den huvudsakliga diskussionen handlar om gräns-dragningen mellan om en skadelidande kan kräva ersättning av sin avtalspart för dennes avtalsparts skadevållande eller om den istället ska vända sig direkt till skadevållaren på utomobligatorisk väg.
De mer omfattande gränsdragnings¬problemen gällande ersättningsgilla skador uppstår vid de utomobligatoriska anspråken. Ett grund¬läggande skäl till detta är att det måste dras en gräns mellan sakskada och ren förmögenhetsskada. Om en tredjeman drabbas av en direkt sakskada ska denna ersättas. Om däremot skadan är att betrakta som en följd¬skada pga. en sakskada som drabbat annan, exempelvis beställaren, är skadan att ses som en skadeståndsrättslig tredjemansskada, vilken inte ersätts enligt svensk rätt. Gränsdragningen mellan skadetyper är även viktig vid avgörande av om ersättning ska utgå från ansvars- respektive egendomsförsäkringen. Hovrättsfallet väckte frågan om sakskadebegreppet skiljer sig åt mellan de olika försäkringsformerna. Någon slutsats om detta är inte helt lätt att dra, då vägledande praxis på området är så gott som obefintlig. (Less)
Abstract
In relation to constructional work, a large variety of damages can occur on property that does not belong to the actual construction regulated in the contract between the contractor and the employer. Consequently, it constitutes a crucial matter that the contractor will be able to foresee the risks. This is important, especially considering appropriate insurances that the contractor needs to take out. The contractual liability for damages suffered by the employer is regulated in the construction contract. The standard contract AB 04 regulates the risks of the parties and the contractor is often given extensive liability.
A contractual third party, who does not belong to one of the contracting parties, can also suffer damages. In that... (More)
In relation to constructional work, a large variety of damages can occur on property that does not belong to the actual construction regulated in the contract between the contractor and the employer. Consequently, it constitutes a crucial matter that the contractor will be able to foresee the risks. This is important, especially considering appropriate insurances that the contractor needs to take out. The contractual liability for damages suffered by the employer is regulated in the construction contract. The standard contract AB 04 regulates the risks of the parties and the contractor is often given extensive liability.
A contractual third party, who does not belong to one of the contracting parties, can also suffer damages. In that case, the compensation issue has to be solved with law of tort. The purpose of this thesis is to examine a contractor’s liability for different types of damages. The examination revolves around a ruling of the court of appeal in 2007, where a number of interesting legal issues regarding the contractor’s liability for different types of damages were discussed. The court case also highlights insurance issues connected to the contractor’s liability. Since the different legal issues noted in the thesis are quite “straggly”, the ruling of the court in question forms the basis for the analysis of the thesis.
Regarding the damages suffered by the employer, the analysis essentially revolves around the issue whether the contractor has caused the damage through fulfilment of the contract work or not. Additionally, an important issue discussed in the analysis is whether the damage has affected the employer’s construction works or other type of property.
The ruling of the court of appeal from 2007 clearly highlights the legal issues. The thesis presents the interpretation method to be used when interpreting construction contracts that has developed through rulings by the Supreme Court in recent years. The analysis contains a discussion on how the Supreme Court would have ruled today, considering the developed interpretation method.
Regarding the damages suffered by a third party the thesis focuses on the situation where the contractor has caused damage to another contractor’s property. The contractors do not have a contractual relationship with each other, but only with the employer. Actions for damages will in that case have to be made according to tort law. However, AB 04 cannot be ignored, since it contains terms that regulate a party’s liability for the actions of his sub-contractors. The essential discussion is about the delimitation between whether a sub-contractor shall claim compensation from the employer or directly from the negligent contractor.
The more extensive delimitation problems regarding reimbursable damage arise when a third party claims damages. The fundamental reason for this is the requirement of delimitation between property damage and economic loss. If a third party is affected by property damage this damage is reimbursable. On the other hand, if the damage is to be considered a consequential loss due to property damage suffered by someone else (for example the employer), the damage is to be considered a third party damage, which is not reimbursable according to Swedish tort law.
Delimitation between types of damage is also important regarding the issue whether compensation from either liability insurance or property insurance shall be paid. The ruling of the court from 2007 raised the question if the definition of property damage differs in the different forms of insurance. As a consequence of the lack of rulings regarding the above-mentioned issue, the question arises how the court would reason. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Nilsson, Maja LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
The liability of the contractor regarding damages caused on property not constituting the construction work
course
JURM02 20162
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Skadeståndsrätt, entreprenadrätt, försäkringsrätt, avtalsrätt, avtalstolkning, allmänna bestämmelser, AB 04, kontraktspart, standardavtal, utomobligatoriskt skadestånd, inomobligatoriskt skadestånd, sakskada, egendomsskada, ren förmögenhetsskada, tredjemansskada, ansvar, skadeståndsansvar, entreprenöransvar, beställaransvar
language
Swedish
id
8897697
date added to LUP
2017-01-25 10:58:10
date last changed
2017-01-25 10:58:10
@misc{8897697,
  abstract     = {In relation to constructional work, a large variety of damages can occur on property that does not belong to the actual construction regulated in the contract between the contractor and the employer. Consequently, it constitutes a crucial matter that the contractor will be able to foresee the risks. This is important, especially considering appropriate insurances that the contractor needs to take out. The contractual liability for damages suffered by the employer is regulated in the construction contract. The standard contract AB 04 regulates the risks of the parties and the contractor is often given extensive liability.
A contractual third party, who does not belong to one of the contracting parties, can also suffer damages. In that case, the compensation issue has to be solved with law of tort. The purpose of this thesis is to examine a contractor’s liability for different types of damages. The examination revolves around a ruling of the court of appeal in 2007, where a number of interesting legal issues regarding the contractor’s liability for different types of damages were discussed. The court case also highlights insurance issues connected to the contractor’s liability. Since the different legal issues noted in the thesis are quite “straggly”, the ruling of the court in question forms the basis for the analysis of the thesis. 
Regarding the damages suffered by the employer, the analysis essentially revolves around the issue whether the contractor has caused the damage through fulfilment of the contract work or not. Additionally, an important issue discussed in the analysis is whether the damage has affected the employer’s construction works or other type of property. 
The ruling of the court of appeal from 2007 clearly highlights the legal issues. The thesis presents the interpretation method to be used when interpreting construction contracts that has developed through rulings by the Supreme Court in recent years. The analysis contains a discussion on how the Supreme Court would have ruled today, considering the developed interpretation method. 
Regarding the damages suffered by a third party the thesis focuses on the situation where the contractor has caused damage to another contractor’s property. The contractors do not have a contractual relationship with each other, but only with the employer. Actions for damages will in that case have to be made according to tort law. However, AB 04 cannot be ignored, since it contains terms that regulate a party’s liability for the actions of his sub-contractors. The essential discussion is about the delimitation between whether a sub-contractor shall claim compensation from the employer or directly from the negligent contractor.
The more extensive delimitation problems regarding reimbursable damage arise when a third party claims damages. The fundamental reason for this is the requirement of delimitation between property damage and economic loss. If a third party is affected by property damage this damage is reimbursable. On the other hand, if the damage is to be considered a consequential loss due to property damage suffered by someone else (for example the employer), the damage is to be considered a third party damage, which is not reimbursable according to Swedish tort law.
Delimitation between types of damage is also important regarding the issue whether compensation from either liability insurance or property insurance shall be paid. The ruling of the court from 2007 raised the question if the definition of property damage differs in the different forms of insurance. As a consequence of the lack of rulings regarding the above-mentioned issue, the question arises how the court would reason.},
  author       = {Nilsson, Maja},
  keyword      = {Skadeståndsrätt,entreprenadrätt,försäkringsrätt,avtalsrätt,avtalstolkning,allmänna bestämmelser,AB 04,kontraktspart,standardavtal,utomobligatoriskt skadestånd,inomobligatoriskt skadestånd,sakskada,egendomsskada,ren förmögenhetsskada,tredjemansskada,ansvar,skadeståndsansvar,entreprenöransvar,beställaransvar},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Entreprenörens ansvar för skada som drabbar annat än entreprenaden},
  year         = {2016},
}