Advanced

Mamma betalar? - En kritisk granskning av vårdnadshavares skadeståndsansvar

Fazlic, Emma LU (2017) LAGF03 20171
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract
In 2010 an amendment was made that made legal guardians subject to strict liability for damages caused by their children, if the damages were caused as a result of a criminal offence. The purpose was to decrease juvenile delinquency. The purpose of this thesis has been to investigate the liability and to compare it with employer’s liability for an employee’s torts.

The liability is regulated in the 3 ch. 5 § of the Tort Liability Act. The liability is extensive, even though certain limitations have been made. The regulation is somewhat unclear, especially concerning the legal concept “loss event”. For the regulation to be more predictable, more guidance is needed, both from legislators and courts.

The special possibility to... (More)
In 2010 an amendment was made that made legal guardians subject to strict liability for damages caused by their children, if the damages were caused as a result of a criminal offence. The purpose was to decrease juvenile delinquency. The purpose of this thesis has been to investigate the liability and to compare it with employer’s liability for an employee’s torts.

The liability is regulated in the 3 ch. 5 § of the Tort Liability Act. The liability is extensive, even though certain limitations have been made. The regulation is somewhat unclear, especially concerning the legal concept “loss event”. For the regulation to be more predictable, more guidance is needed, both from legislators and courts.

The special possibility to mitigate damages for legal guardians was introduced at the same time as the liability. Mitigation is only possible for when the liability for the legal guardian is “obviously unreasonable”. The rule is to be applied restrictively, as can be seen in precedents. However, the courts have yet to establish the limits for what is “obviously unreasonable”, which makes it unpredictable for legal guardians to know the extent of their responsibility or what measures they can take to avoid liability.

The thesis also compares the liability for legal guardians with employer’s liability. The rules regarding legal guardians have been placed under the same chapter as the liability for the employer, and the liabilities have been labeled the same. However, these liabilities are very different from each other, specifically regarding the measures an employer can take to prevent damages. The placement of the regulation is problematic as it does not fit in the context. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
2010 trädde en lagändring i kraft som medförde att vårdnadshavare ålades ett strikt ansvar för skador som deras barn vållat genom brott. Syftet med regleringen var att den skulle verka brottspreventivt och minska förekomsten av ungdomsbrottslighet. Framställningens syfte har varit att utreda detta ansvar och att jämföra med ansvaret som arbetsgivare har för sina arbetstagare.

Vårdnadshavares ansvar regleras i 3 kap. 5 § SkL och är förenat med få undantag. Ansvaret är oerhört omfattande, trots att det finns vissa begränsningar. Regleringen är dock något oklar, framför allt beträffande innebörden av begreppet skadehändelse. För att ansvaret ska bli mer förutsägbart för vårdnadshavare krävs mer vägledning, både från lagstiftaren och... (More)
2010 trädde en lagändring i kraft som medförde att vårdnadshavare ålades ett strikt ansvar för skador som deras barn vållat genom brott. Syftet med regleringen var att den skulle verka brottspreventivt och minska förekomsten av ungdomsbrottslighet. Framställningens syfte har varit att utreda detta ansvar och att jämföra med ansvaret som arbetsgivare har för sina arbetstagare.

Vårdnadshavares ansvar regleras i 3 kap. 5 § SkL och är förenat med få undantag. Ansvaret är oerhört omfattande, trots att det finns vissa begränsningar. Regleringen är dock något oklar, framför allt beträffande innebörden av begreppet skadehändelse. För att ansvaret ska bli mer förutsägbart för vårdnadshavare krävs mer vägledning, både från lagstiftaren och domstolarna.

Den speciella möjligheten att jämka skadeståndet infördes samtidigt och syftet med bestämmelsen var att ha en slags ventil för att kunna jämka ansvar då det framstår som uppenbart oskäligt att bli skadeståndsskyldig. Bestämmelsen ska dock tillämpas restriktivt, vilket framgår av praxis. Gränsen för vad som är uppenbart oskäligt har inte definierats, vilket gör att det även här brister i förutsägbarhet för vad en vårdnadshavare väntas göra.

I uppsatsen jämförs även vårdnadshavares ansvar med arbetsgivares ansvar. Vårdnadshavarens ansvar har placerats i samma kapitel som arbetsgivarens ansvar och båda betecknas som principalansvar. Problematiken med detta ligger i att dessa ansvar skiljer sig åt väldigt mycket, framför allt beträffande de olika undantag och säkerhetsventiler som finns för arbetsgivaren. Det blir således bekymmersamt att placera ansvaren under samma kapitel och benämna dem likadant, eftersom vårdnadshavarens ansvar i praktiken inte är ett principalansvar, utan ett strikt ansvar. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Fazlic, Emma LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20171
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
Skadeståndsrätt
language
Swedish
id
8908050
date added to LUP
2017-06-29 10:59:43
date last changed
2017-06-29 10:59:43
@misc{8908050,
  abstract     = {In 2010 an amendment was made that made legal guardians subject to strict liability for damages caused by their children, if the damages were caused as a result of a criminal offence. The purpose was to decrease juvenile delinquency. The purpose of this thesis has been to investigate the liability and to compare it with employer’s liability for an employee’s torts. 

The liability is regulated in the 3 ch. 5 § of the Tort Liability Act. The liability is extensive, even though certain limitations have been made. The regulation is somewhat unclear, especially concerning the legal concept “loss event”. For the regulation to be more predictable, more guidance is needed, both from legislators and courts. 

The special possibility to mitigate damages for legal guardians was introduced at the same time as the liability. Mitigation is only possible for when the liability for the legal guardian is “obviously unreasonable”. The rule is to be applied restrictively, as can be seen in precedents. However, the courts have yet to establish the limits for what is “obviously unreasonable”, which makes it unpredictable for legal guardians to know the extent of their responsibility or what measures they can take to avoid liability. 

The thesis also compares the liability for legal guardians with employer’s liability. The rules regarding legal guardians have been placed under the same chapter as the liability for the employer, and the liabilities have been labeled the same. However, these liabilities are very different from each other, specifically regarding the measures an employer can take to prevent damages. The placement of the regulation is problematic as it does not fit in the context.},
  author       = {Fazlic, Emma},
  keyword      = {Skadeståndsrätt},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Mamma betalar? - En kritisk granskning av vårdnadshavares skadeståndsansvar},
  year         = {2017},
}