Få fällande domar i arbetsmiljöbrott - En kritisk studie av beviskravet för arbetsmiljöbrott
(2021) JURM02 20211Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- På nittiotalet såg lagstiftaren att en ökad arbetstakt ledde till mer riskfyllda arbetsplatser. Lagstiftaren ansåg att den ökade specialiseringen innebar att det inte fanns fullständiga kunskaper om vilka risker arbetarna utsattes för. För att öka tryggheten för arbetarna infördes arbetsmiljöbrotten i brottsbalken. Detta skulle leda till en ökad kunskap inom rättsväsendet. Lagstiftaren ville öka rättsväsendets kapacitet att hantera vållandebrotten då de förekom på arbetsplatsen.
Trettio år senare är det fortfarande få som lagförs för arbetsmiljöbrott. I arbetet undersöks hur arbetsmiljöbrottet vållande till annans död hanteras av Högsta domstolen. Detta jämförs sedan med överrätternas hantering av vållande till annans död i trafiken.... (More) - På nittiotalet såg lagstiftaren att en ökad arbetstakt ledde till mer riskfyllda arbetsplatser. Lagstiftaren ansåg att den ökade specialiseringen innebar att det inte fanns fullständiga kunskaper om vilka risker arbetarna utsattes för. För att öka tryggheten för arbetarna infördes arbetsmiljöbrotten i brottsbalken. Detta skulle leda till en ökad kunskap inom rättsväsendet. Lagstiftaren ville öka rättsväsendets kapacitet att hantera vållandebrotten då de förekom på arbetsplatsen.
Trettio år senare är det fortfarande få som lagförs för arbetsmiljöbrott. I arbetet undersöks hur arbetsmiljöbrottet vållande till annans död hanteras av Högsta domstolen. Detta jämförs sedan med överrätternas hantering av vållande till annans död i trafiken. Detta görs i syfte att se om tillämpningen av beviskravet vid arbetsmiljöbrott skiljer sig från beviskravet vid andra vållandebrott. Rättsfallen studeras med rättsdogmatisk metod för att utröna vilket beviskrav som gäller för orsakssambandet i vållandebrotten.
Vissa skillnader i hanteringen av de olika måltyperna kan observeras, bland annat gällande formuleringen av beviskravet. Därav inriktas nästa del av arbetet inriktat på huruvida juridiskt relevanta skäl för en differentiering av beviskravet mellan måltyperna finns att hitta i doktrin eller domskäl. (Less) - Abstract
- In the 1990’s, the legislative power witnessed an increased pace in the work environment, and consequently also an enhanced risk for occupational injuries. Moreover, further specialization had resulted in a lack of knowledge concerning the risks that the workers were exposed to in the workplace. With the intent of increasing the safety for workers in their occupations, violations of the Work Environment Act were introduced into the Swedish penal code. This was believed to provide the judicial system with a greater knowledge of fault liability, as the legislative power aimed to advance the capacity to handle violations in the work environment.
Today, thirty years post the introduction of violations of the Work Environment Act in the... (More) - In the 1990’s, the legislative power witnessed an increased pace in the work environment, and consequently also an enhanced risk for occupational injuries. Moreover, further specialization had resulted in a lack of knowledge concerning the risks that the workers were exposed to in the workplace. With the intent of increasing the safety for workers in their occupations, violations of the Work Environment Act were introduced into the Swedish penal code. This was believed to provide the judicial system with a greater knowledge of fault liability, as the legislative power aimed to advance the capacity to handle violations in the work environment.
Today, thirty years post the introduction of violations of the Work Environment Act in the penal code, the regulations are criticized with arguments that there are in fact few legal proceedings for violations against it.
This analysis aims to examine how cases of causing another’s death as a violation of the Work Environment Act are managed by the Swedish Supreme Court. Subsequently, the findings will be compared with cases of causing another’s death as a violation of the Road Traffic Offences Act, handled by the superior courts. The purpose of the comparison is to analyse whether the evidentiary requirement in cases of causing another’s death as a violation of the Work Environment Act is consistent with other forms of cases concerning the causing of another’s death. The chosen cases are studied to establish what the evidentiary requirement is for the casual connection in such cases.
In examining these cases, some variances can be observed between the two different types of cases. Such variances include the wording of the evidentiary requirement. Hence, the analysis also focuses on whether any legally relevant reasons for such a differentiation between the different types of cases can be found in legal literature or the courts’ reasonings. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9046144
- author
- Hall, Karin LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- Few convictions in cases of causing another's death as a violation of the Work Environment Act
- course
- JURM02 20211
- year
- 2021
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- Allmän rättslära, arbetsrätt, straffrätt, arbetsmiljöbrott, bevisvärdering
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9046144
- date added to LUP
- 2021-06-09 11:58:58
- date last changed
- 2021-06-09 11:58:58
@misc{9046144,
abstract = {{In the 1990’s, the legislative power witnessed an increased pace in the work environment, and consequently also an enhanced risk for occupational injuries. Moreover, further specialization had resulted in a lack of knowledge concerning the risks that the workers were exposed to in the workplace. With the intent of increasing the safety for workers in their occupations, violations of the Work Environment Act were introduced into the Swedish penal code. This was believed to provide the judicial system with a greater knowledge of fault liability, as the legislative power aimed to advance the capacity to handle violations in the work environment.
Today, thirty years post the introduction of violations of the Work Environment Act in the penal code, the regulations are criticized with arguments that there are in fact few legal proceedings for violations against it.
This analysis aims to examine how cases of causing another’s death as a violation of the Work Environment Act are managed by the Swedish Supreme Court. Subsequently, the findings will be compared with cases of causing another’s death as a violation of the Road Traffic Offences Act, handled by the superior courts. The purpose of the comparison is to analyse whether the evidentiary requirement in cases of causing another’s death as a violation of the Work Environment Act is consistent with other forms of cases concerning the causing of another’s death. The chosen cases are studied to establish what the evidentiary requirement is for the casual connection in such cases.
In examining these cases, some variances can be observed between the two different types of cases. Such variances include the wording of the evidentiary requirement. Hence, the analysis also focuses on whether any legally relevant reasons for such a differentiation between the different types of cases can be found in legal literature or the courts’ reasonings.}},
author = {{Hall, Karin}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Få fällande domar i arbetsmiljöbrott - En kritisk studie av beviskravet för arbetsmiljöbrott}},
year = {{2021}},
}