Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

En defekt lagstiftning? - Om föräldrars skadeståndsansvar i 3 kap. 5 § SkL

Rogowska, Evelina LU (2020) JURM02 20192
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract
In September 2010, a new basis for liability for someone else's negligence was introduced in Swedish tort law. Since then, parents are held strictly liable for damages that arise from a child's criminal offence. The purpose of the rule was to emphasize the parents' responsibility for their children and, by extension, to reduce juvenile crime. The reform was implemented despite widespread criticism from the consultation bodies and from the opposition in Parliament. The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (Brå) has evaluated the reform on behalf of the government. The Council presented its report at the end of 2017 and the evaluation pointed to various negative effects of the reform. Brå first proposed that the rules on parents'... (More)
In September 2010, a new basis for liability for someone else's negligence was introduced in Swedish tort law. Since then, parents are held strictly liable for damages that arise from a child's criminal offence. The purpose of the rule was to emphasize the parents' responsibility for their children and, by extension, to reduce juvenile crime. The reform was implemented despite widespread criticism from the consultation bodies and from the opposition in Parliament. The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (Brå) has evaluated the reform on behalf of the government. The Council presented its report at the end of 2017 and the evaluation pointed to various negative effects of the reform. Brå first proposed that the rules on parents' strict liability should be abolished, and secondly that the rules should be improved. Despite this, no shortcomings have been fixed yet.

The essay examines the rule of parents' strict liability in Chapter 3 Section 5 of the Swedish Tort Liability Act (in Swedish skadeståndslagen (1972: 207)) and the possibilities of mitigating the liability in accordance with Chapter 3 Section 6 and Chapter 6 Section 2 of the Tort Liability Act. An empirical study has been conducted to answer several questions that Brå—in the absence of statistics from various authorities—could not answer. In the study, a large number of district court judgements from 2018 were reviewed in order to answer various questions related to parental liability. The questions concerned the number of parents who were sentenced to pay damages and the gender distribution among them, the amount of the damages parents were sentenced to pay, the possibilities of mitigating the liability and what criminal offences the losses arose from. The only precedent from the Swedish Supreme Court so far—in which the main question concerned the mitigation of a parent's liability—has also been examined, and the impact of the case (NJA 2015 s. 482) in the judgements of the district courts has been examined.

The results of the examination and the empirical study indicate that several shortcomings in the legislation need to be addressed. Parents' liability should be individual so that no parent is disadvantaged because he or she has sole custody or assumes greater responsibility for his or her child. Furthermore, the liability should be limited so that parents—of children who have caused an injury or damage together with other minors—are not sentenced to pay more than a share of the actual loss. The liability should also be limited in time so that the parents' liability does not automatically follow the limitation period for the criminal offense. If a minor has committed a criminal offence while being in compulsory care, or if the criminal offence was committed under the influence of a serious mental disorder (in Swedish allvarlig psykisk störning), the parent's liability should always be mitigated. Finally, when applying the general provision of mitigation in Chapter 6 Section 2 of the Tort Liability Act, liability should be mitigated with regard only to whether the obligation to compensate would be unreasonably burdensome in view of the parent's financial situation. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
I september 2010 infördes en ny ansvarsgrund för annans vållande i svensk skadeståndsrätt. Sedan dess svarar föräldrar strikt för skador som deras barn orsakat genom brott. Syftet med reglerna var att tydliggöra föräldrars ansvar för sina barn och i förlängningen att ungdomsbrottsligheten skulle minska. Reformen genomfördes trots omfattande kritik från remissinstanserna och från oppositionen i riksdagen. Brottsförebyggande rådet (Brå) har på regeringens uppdrag utvärderat reformen. Myndigheten presenterade sin rapport i slutet av 2017 och utvärderingen pekade på olika negativa effekter av reformen. Brå föreslog i första hand att reglerna om föräldrars strikta skadeståndsansvar skulle avskaffas, och i andra hand att reglerna skulle... (More)
I september 2010 infördes en ny ansvarsgrund för annans vållande i svensk skadeståndsrätt. Sedan dess svarar föräldrar strikt för skador som deras barn orsakat genom brott. Syftet med reglerna var att tydliggöra föräldrars ansvar för sina barn och i förlängningen att ungdomsbrottsligheten skulle minska. Reformen genomfördes trots omfattande kritik från remissinstanserna och från oppositionen i riksdagen. Brottsförebyggande rådet (Brå) har på regeringens uppdrag utvärderat reformen. Myndigheten presenterade sin rapport i slutet av 2017 och utvärderingen pekade på olika negativa effekter av reformen. Brå föreslog i första hand att reglerna om föräldrars strikta skadeståndsansvar skulle avskaffas, och i andra hand att reglerna skulle förbättras. Trots detta har inga brister ännu åtgärdats.

I uppsatsen granskas reglerna om föräldrars strikta skadeståndsansvar i
3 kap. 5 § skadeståndslagen (1972:207), SkL, och möjligheterna till jämkning av detta ansvar enligt 3 kap. 6 § SkL och 6 kap. 2 § SkL. En empirisk undersökning har genomförts för att besvara flera frågor som Brå – i brist på statistik från olika myndigheter – inte kunde besvara. I undersökningen har ett stort antal tingsrättsavgöranden från 2018 granskats för att besvara olika frågor kopplade till föräldrars skadeståndsansvar. Frågorna har gällt antalet föräldrar som döms att betala skadestånd och könsfördelningen bland dessa, storleken på de utdömda skadestånden, möjligheterna till jämkning av föräldrars skadestånd samt vid vilka brott som föräldrar dömts ansvariga. Det hittills enda vägledande avgörandet från Högsta domstolen – i vilket huvudfrågan varit jämkning av en förälders skadeståndsansvar – har också granskats, och genomslaget för fallet (NJA 2015 s. 482) i underrätternas avgöranden har undersökts.

Resultatet av granskningen och den empiriska undersökningen talar för att flera brister i lagstiftningen behöver åtgärdas. Föräldrarnas ansvar bör vara individuellt så att ingen förälder blir förfördelad på grund av att han eller hon är ensamstående eller tar ett större ansvar för sitt barn. Skadeståndsansvaret bör vidare begränsas så att föräldrar – till ungdomar som gemensamt med andra ungdomar orsakat en skada genom brott – inte döms att betala mer än en andel av skadans faktiska storlek. Skadeståndsansvaret bör också begränsas i tid så att föräldrarnas skadeståndsansvar inte automatiskt följer preskriptionstiden för det brott varigenom barnet orsakat en skada. Om barnet begått ett brott och orsakat en skada när det varit tvångsomhändertaget enligt socialrättslig lagstiftning, eller om brottet begåtts under påverkan av en allvarlig psykisk störning ska förälderns skadestånd alltid jämkas. Avslutningsvis bör jämkning enligt den allmänna jämkningsregeln i 6 kap. 2 § SkL göras enbart med beaktande av om skadeståndet skulle vara oskäligt betungande med hänsyn till förälderns ekonomiska förhållanden. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Rogowska, Evelina LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
A defective legislation? - Parental liability in Chapter 3 Section 5 of the Swedish Tort Liability Act
course
JURM02 20192
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Skadeståndsrätt, förmögenhetsrätt, civilrätt
language
Swedish
id
9009112
date added to LUP
2020-06-23 13:29:52
date last changed
2020-06-23 13:29:52
@misc{9009112,
  abstract     = {{In September 2010, a new basis for liability for someone else's negligence was introduced in Swedish tort law. Since then, parents are held strictly liable for damages that arise from a child's criminal offence. The purpose of the rule was to emphasize the parents' responsibility for their children and, by extension, to reduce juvenile crime. The reform was implemented despite widespread criticism from the consultation bodies and from the opposition in Parliament. The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (Brå) has evaluated the reform on behalf of the government. The Council presented its report at the end of 2017 and the evaluation pointed to various negative effects of the reform. Brå first proposed that the rules on parents' strict liability should be abolished, and secondly that the rules should be improved. Despite this, no shortcomings have been fixed yet.

The essay examines the rule of parents' strict liability in Chapter 3 Section 5 of the Swedish Tort Liability Act (in Swedish skadeståndslagen (1972: 207)) and the possibilities of mitigating the liability in accordance with Chapter 3 Section 6 and Chapter 6 Section 2 of the Tort Liability Act. An empirical study has been conducted to answer several questions that Brå—in the absence of statistics from various authorities—could not answer. In the study, a large number of district court judgements from 2018 were reviewed in order to answer various questions related to parental liability. The questions concerned the number of parents who were sentenced to pay damages and the gender distribution among them, the amount of the damages parents were sentenced to pay, the possibilities of mitigating the liability and what criminal offences the losses arose from. The only precedent from the Swedish Supreme Court so far—in which the main question concerned the mitigation of a parent's liability—has also been examined, and the impact of the case (NJA 2015 s. 482) in the judgements of the district courts has been examined.

The results of the examination and the empirical study indicate that several shortcomings in the legislation need to be addressed. Parents' liability should be individual so that no parent is disadvantaged because he or she has sole custody or assumes greater responsibility for his or her child. Furthermore, the liability should be limited so that parents—of children who have caused an injury or damage together with other minors—are not sentenced to pay more than a share of the actual loss. The liability should also be limited in time so that the parents' liability does not automatically follow the limitation period for the criminal offense. If a minor has committed a criminal offence while being in compulsory care, or if the criminal offence was committed under the influence of a serious mental disorder (in Swedish allvarlig psykisk störning), the parent's liability should always be mitigated. Finally, when applying the general provision of mitigation in Chapter 6 Section 2 of the Tort Liability Act, liability should be mitigated with regard only to whether the obligation to compensate would be unreasonably burdensome in view of the parent's financial situation.}},
  author       = {{Rogowska, Evelina}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{En defekt lagstiftning? - Om föräldrars skadeståndsansvar i 3 kap. 5 § SkL}},
  year         = {{2020}},
}