Vem bör bära bördan? De allmänna domstolarnas bedömning av bevisbördefrågor i fordringsmål 2009-2019
(2021) LAGF03 20211Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract
- The purpose of this work is to examine the courts' placement of the burden of proof in the light of the theories about burden of proof which were developed in literature and practice. To fulfill this purpose, several legal cases between the years 2009 and 2019, in which the location of the burden of proof has been discussed, are examined and analyzed. The cases show which rules and theories have mainly been used and how the courts have reasoned in the assessments of the placement of the burden of proof.
The investigation shows that the distribution of the burden of proof is not consistent and predictable. Instead, decisions and motivations change throughout varying levels of the judicial system. Judges disagree with each other and... (More) - The purpose of this work is to examine the courts' placement of the burden of proof in the light of the theories about burden of proof which were developed in literature and practice. To fulfill this purpose, several legal cases between the years 2009 and 2019, in which the location of the burden of proof has been discussed, are examined and analyzed. The cases show which rules and theories have mainly been used and how the courts have reasoned in the assessments of the placement of the burden of proof.
The investigation shows that the distribution of the burden of proof is not consistent and predictable. Instead, decisions and motivations change throughout varying levels of the judicial system. Judges disagree with each other and decisions and the motivations presented are therefore fragmented in several of the cases. The conclusion is that there is no standard theory used in placing the burden of proof. Instead, the placement is motivated in the light of several theories based on societal interests that change over time, as well as different circumstances in individual cases. (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- Syftet med detta arbete är att undersöka domstolarnas placering av bevisbördan i fordringsmål mot bakgrund av bevisbördeteorier utvecklade i doktrin och praxis. För att uppfylla detta syfte undersöks och granskas flertalet rättsfall mellan åren 2009 och 2019 där bevisbördans placering har diskuterats. Rättsfallen visar vilka regler och teorier som främst har använts och hur domstolarna har resonerat i bedömningarna av bevisbördans placering.
Utredningen visar att fördelningen av bevisbördan inte är konsekvent och förutsebar. Istället ändras avgöranden och motiveringar både inom och mellan instanser. Rådmän och justitieråd skriver sig skiljaktiga i ett flertal mål. Slutsatsen blir att det ej finns en standardteori som används vid... (More) - Syftet med detta arbete är att undersöka domstolarnas placering av bevisbördan i fordringsmål mot bakgrund av bevisbördeteorier utvecklade i doktrin och praxis. För att uppfylla detta syfte undersöks och granskas flertalet rättsfall mellan åren 2009 och 2019 där bevisbördans placering har diskuterats. Rättsfallen visar vilka regler och teorier som främst har använts och hur domstolarna har resonerat i bedömningarna av bevisbördans placering.
Utredningen visar att fördelningen av bevisbördan inte är konsekvent och förutsebar. Istället ändras avgöranden och motiveringar både inom och mellan instanser. Rådmän och justitieråd skriver sig skiljaktiga i ett flertal mål. Slutsatsen blir att det ej finns en standardteori som används vid placering av bevisbördan. Istället motiveras placeringen mot bakgrund av flertalet teorier utifrån dels samhällsintressen som skiftar över tid, dels olika omständigheter i individuella mål. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9055749
- author
- Restelica, Nora LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20211
- year
- 2021
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Bevisbörda, processrätt, prejudikat, bevisbördeteorier, bevissäkring, fordringsmål.
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9055749
- date added to LUP
- 2021-09-24 10:52:30
- date last changed
- 2021-09-24 10:52:30
@misc{9055749, abstract = {{The purpose of this work is to examine the courts' placement of the burden of proof in the light of the theories about burden of proof which were developed in literature and practice. To fulfill this purpose, several legal cases between the years 2009 and 2019, in which the location of the burden of proof has been discussed, are examined and analyzed. The cases show which rules and theories have mainly been used and how the courts have reasoned in the assessments of the placement of the burden of proof. The investigation shows that the distribution of the burden of proof is not consistent and predictable. Instead, decisions and motivations change throughout varying levels of the judicial system. Judges disagree with each other and decisions and the motivations presented are therefore fragmented in several of the cases. The conclusion is that there is no standard theory used in placing the burden of proof. Instead, the placement is motivated in the light of several theories based on societal interests that change over time, as well as different circumstances in individual cases.}}, author = {{Restelica, Nora}}, language = {{swe}}, note = {{Student Paper}}, title = {{Vem bör bära bördan? De allmänna domstolarnas bedömning av bevisbördefrågor i fordringsmål 2009-2019}}, year = {{2021}}, }