Advanced

Vårdnadshavares principalansvar - en enkel lösning på ett komplext problem

Kjellberg, Louise LU (2018) LAGF03 20181
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Den första september 2010 trädde en ny bestämmelse inom svensk skadeståndsrätt i kraft. Lagändringen innebar att föräldrar som har vårdnaden av sina barn numera har ett strikt skadeståndsansvar för vissa typer av skador som deras barn vållar genom brott. Det huvudsakliga syftet bakom lagändringen var att minska ungdomsbrottsligheten. Genom att ålägga föräldrar ett skärpt ekonomiskt ansvar hoppades lagstiftaren ge föräldrar ett argument till en ökad insyn i sina barn liv vilket i sin tur skulle verka brottspreventivt.
Bestämmelsen blev redan innan införandet i skadeståndslagen starkt kritiserad från flera remissinstanser och andra juridiskt sakkunniga. Dessa menade att reformen inte skulle kunna få avsedda effekter och även utgjorde ett... (More)
Den första september 2010 trädde en ny bestämmelse inom svensk skadeståndsrätt i kraft. Lagändringen innebar att föräldrar som har vårdnaden av sina barn numera har ett strikt skadeståndsansvar för vissa typer av skador som deras barn vållar genom brott. Det huvudsakliga syftet bakom lagändringen var att minska ungdomsbrottsligheten. Genom att ålägga föräldrar ett skärpt ekonomiskt ansvar hoppades lagstiftaren ge föräldrar ett argument till en ökad insyn i sina barn liv vilket i sin tur skulle verka brottspreventivt.
Bestämmelsen blev redan innan införandet i skadeståndslagen starkt kritiserad från flera remissinstanser och andra juridiskt sakkunniga. Dessa menade att reformen inte skulle kunna få avsedda effekter och även utgjorde ett radikalt och omotiverat avsteg från grundläggande skadeståndsrättsliga principer. År 2017 gjordes från Brå:s sida en uppföljning av reformens effekter där utredningen kom fram till att reformen troligtvis inte har fått de effekter som lagstiftaren hade hoppats på.
Syftet bakom den här uppsatsen har varit att kritiskt granska och undersöka om regleringen som infördes i svensk skadeståndsrätt 2010 har haft avsedd verkan och om inte, vilka effekter den istället har lett till. I analysen drar jag slutsatsen att lagstiftningen troligtvis inte har haft någon preventiv verkan på ungdomsbrottsligheten utan istället haft försvårande konsekvenser för ekonomiskt svaga familjer. I analysens avslutande del argumenterar jag för en förändring av reformen där jag anser att den antingen bör tas bort helt eller göras om där jämkningsmöjligheten måste utvidgas och kraven för vad en vårdnadshavare ska ha gjort för att förhindra barnets brottslighet måste sänkas. (Less)
Abstract
On September 1, 2010, a new law regulation was introduced in the Swedish Liability for Damages Act. The new regulation meant that parents who have custody of their children now have a strict liability for certain types of injuries suffered by their children through crime.
The main purpose of the new regulation was to reduce juvenile delinquency. By imposing increased financial responsibility on parents, the legislator
hoped to give parents an argument for increased transparency in their children's lives, which in turn would appear to be anti-crime.
The provision was strongly criticized by several referral bodies and other legal experts who said that the reform could not have the intended effects and also constituted a radical and... (More)
On September 1, 2010, a new law regulation was introduced in the Swedish Liability for Damages Act. The new regulation meant that parents who have custody of their children now have a strict liability for certain types of injuries suffered by their children through crime.
The main purpose of the new regulation was to reduce juvenile delinquency. By imposing increased financial responsibility on parents, the legislator
hoped to give parents an argument for increased transparency in their children's lives, which in turn would appear to be anti-crime.
The provision was strongly criticized by several referral bodies and other legal experts who said that the reform could not have the intended effects and also constituted a radical and unjustified departure from fundamental principles. In 2017 a follow-up report was made by “Brå” to investigate the effects of the reform, where the investigation revealed that the reform probably hadn’t had the effects hoped by the legislator.
The purpose of this paper has been to critically review and investigate whether the damages rule introduced in Swedish Civil Liability Act in 2010 has had the intended effect and, if not, what effects it has caused. In the analysis, I conclude that legislation has probably not had any preventive effect on juvenile delinquency but instead had aggravating consequences for economically weak families. In the end of the analysis, I argue for a change in the reform, where I think it should either be removed or redesigned where the possibility for equalization and the requirements for what a guardian should have done to prevent the child's crime must be reduced. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Kjellberg, Louise LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20181
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
Skadeståndsrätt, principalansvar, vårdnadshavare, barn
language
Swedish
id
8941310
date added to LUP
2018-07-09 16:43:00
date last changed
2018-07-09 16:43:00
@misc{8941310,
  abstract     = {On September 1, 2010, a new law regulation was introduced in the Swedish Liability for Damages Act. The new regulation meant that parents who have custody of their children now have a strict liability for certain types of injuries suffered by their children through crime.
The main purpose of the new regulation was to reduce juvenile delinquency. By imposing increased financial responsibility on parents, the legislator
hoped to give parents an argument for increased transparency in their children's lives, which in turn would appear to be anti-crime.
The provision was strongly criticized by several referral bodies and other legal experts who said that the reform could not have the intended effects and also constituted a radical and unjustified departure from fundamental principles. In 2017 a follow-up report was made by “Brå” to investigate the effects of the reform, where the investigation revealed that the reform probably hadn’t had the effects hoped by the legislator.
The purpose of this paper has been to critically review and investigate whether the damages rule introduced in Swedish Civil Liability Act in 2010 has had the intended effect and, if not, what effects it has caused. In the analysis, I conclude that legislation has probably not had any preventive effect on juvenile delinquency but instead had aggravating consequences for economically weak families. In the end of the analysis, I argue for a change in the reform, where I think it should either be removed or redesigned where the possibility for equalization and the requirements for what a guardian should have done to prevent the child's crime must be reduced.},
  author       = {Kjellberg, Louise},
  keyword      = {Skadeståndsrätt,principalansvar,vårdnadshavare,barn},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Vårdnadshavares principalansvar - en enkel lösning på ett komplext problem},
  year         = {2018},
}