Föräldrars principalansvar – en alltför långtgående reglering?
(2018) LAGF03 20182Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- En återkommande fråga i svensk skadeståndsrätt har varit vilket ansvar föräldrar ska tillskrivas då deras barn vållar skada. Genom en lagreform år 2010 infördes ett principalansvar, med innebörden att en förälder som har vårdnaden om ett barn ska ersätta skada som barnet orsakar genom brott. Anknytningen till brottslighet hänger samman med lagstiftningens syfte. Den bakomliggande tanken var att principalansvaret på sikt skulle bidra till minskad ungdomsbrottslighet. Lagstiftaren ansåg att en markering av föräldrars huvudansvar för sina barn kunde bidra till att nå denna effekt.
Redan under lagstiftningsarbetet ifrågasattes om ett skärpt föräldraansvar kunde medföra en preventiv effekt på ungdomskriminalitet. Bristen på empiriskt... (More) - En återkommande fråga i svensk skadeståndsrätt har varit vilket ansvar föräldrar ska tillskrivas då deras barn vållar skada. Genom en lagreform år 2010 infördes ett principalansvar, med innebörden att en förälder som har vårdnaden om ett barn ska ersätta skada som barnet orsakar genom brott. Anknytningen till brottslighet hänger samman med lagstiftningens syfte. Den bakomliggande tanken var att principalansvaret på sikt skulle bidra till minskad ungdomsbrottslighet. Lagstiftaren ansåg att en markering av föräldrars huvudansvar för sina barn kunde bidra till att nå denna effekt.
Redan under lagstiftningsarbetet ifrågasattes om ett skärpt föräldraansvar kunde medföra en preventiv effekt på ungdomskriminalitet. Bristen på empiriskt underlag för en sådan slutsats framhölls. Vidare präglades den politiska debatten av motsättningar. Den borgerliga regeringen ansåg att principalansvaret gav föräldrar stöd i diskussioner med barnet. De rödgröna partierna anförde att ansvaret sannolikt skulle drabba familjer med svag ekonomi. Trots kritiken bifölls lagförslaget. Reformen följdes, år 2017, upp av Brottsförebyggande rådet. I rapporten konstaterades att principalansvaret inte uppnått ändamålet att verka brottsförebyggande.
Uppsatsen syftar till att utreda gällande rätt avseende föräldrars skadeståndsskyldighet för sina barns handlande. Fokus har varit att undersöka huruvida det principalansvar som infördes år 2010 är mer långtgående än önskvärt. Utifrån en rättsdogmatisk metod och ett kritiskt perspektiv drar jag slutsatsen att mycket tyder på att föräldrars principalansvar är alltför långtgående. Ansvaret har resulterat i oönskade effekter och drabbar främst resurssvaga familjer. Jag konstaterar även att lagen användes som ett verktyg för att signalera en politisk åsikt. Principalansvaret blev ett ställningstagande från regeringen om att föräldrar ska se efter sina barn. Slutligen anser jag att det saknades stöd för en skadeståndsrättslig reglering, då det i grunden rör sig om kriminalpolitik. (Less) - Abstract
- A frequent question in Swedish tort law has been what liability parents should have when their children cause damage. Through an amendment of law in 2010 a vicarious liability was introduced. A parent who has the custody of a child shall compensate damage caused by the child through crime. The connection to crime is related to the aim of the legislation. The underlying thought was that the vicarious liability would conduce to reduced juvenile delinquency. The legislator considered that a mark of parents ́ main responsibility for their children could help achieve this effect.
Already during the legislative work, it was questioned whether a stricter liability for parents could prevent juvenile criminality. The absence of empirical... (More) - A frequent question in Swedish tort law has been what liability parents should have when their children cause damage. Through an amendment of law in 2010 a vicarious liability was introduced. A parent who has the custody of a child shall compensate damage caused by the child through crime. The connection to crime is related to the aim of the legislation. The underlying thought was that the vicarious liability would conduce to reduced juvenile delinquency. The legislator considered that a mark of parents ́ main responsibility for their children could help achieve this effect.
Already during the legislative work, it was questioned whether a stricter liability for parents could prevent juvenile criminality. The absence of empirical evidence for such a conclusion was emphasized. Furthermore, the political debate was characterized by disagreements. The centre-right government considered that the vicarious liability offered support for parents in discussions with their children. The red-green parties argued that the liability was likely to affect families with weak economy. Despite the criticism the bill passed. In a report from 2017 Brottsförebyggande rådet noted that the stricter liability hasn ́t served its purpose of crime prevention.
The aim of this paper is to investigate applicable law regarding parents ́ liability for the actions of their children. The focus has been to inquire whether the vicarious liability from 2010 is more far-reaching than desirable. Based on a legal-judicial method and a critical perspective I ́ve concluded that a lot of things indicate that the vicarious liability is too far- reaching. The liability has resulted in unwanted effects and affects vulnerable families. I conclude that the law was used to mark a political opinion. The liability became a statement by the government that parents should look after their children. Finally, I consider that there was no support for a law of tort regulation due to that it basically concerns criminal policy. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8965287
- author
- Nilsson, Johanna LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20182
- year
- 2018
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Skadeståndsrätt, Föräldrars principalansvar
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 8965287
- date added to LUP
- 2019-03-10 13:48:45
- date last changed
- 2019-03-10 13:48:45
@misc{8965287,
abstract = {{A frequent question in Swedish tort law has been what liability parents should have when their children cause damage. Through an amendment of law in 2010 a vicarious liability was introduced. A parent who has the custody of a child shall compensate damage caused by the child through crime. The connection to crime is related to the aim of the legislation. The underlying thought was that the vicarious liability would conduce to reduced juvenile delinquency. The legislator considered that a mark of parents ́ main responsibility for their children could help achieve this effect.
Already during the legislative work, it was questioned whether a stricter liability for parents could prevent juvenile criminality. The absence of empirical evidence for such a conclusion was emphasized. Furthermore, the political debate was characterized by disagreements. The centre-right government considered that the vicarious liability offered support for parents in discussions with their children. The red-green parties argued that the liability was likely to affect families with weak economy. Despite the criticism the bill passed. In a report from 2017 Brottsförebyggande rådet noted that the stricter liability hasn ́t served its purpose of crime prevention.
The aim of this paper is to investigate applicable law regarding parents ́ liability for the actions of their children. The focus has been to inquire whether the vicarious liability from 2010 is more far-reaching than desirable. Based on a legal-judicial method and a critical perspective I ́ve concluded that a lot of things indicate that the vicarious liability is too far- reaching. The liability has resulted in unwanted effects and affects vulnerable families. I conclude that the law was used to mark a political opinion. The liability became a statement by the government that parents should look after their children. Finally, I consider that there was no support for a law of tort regulation due to that it basically concerns criminal policy.}},
author = {{Nilsson, Johanna}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Föräldrars principalansvar – en alltför långtgående reglering?}},
year = {{2018}},
}