Ansvarsfrågor vid inhysning av djur- offentligrättsliga, straffrättsliga och skadeståndsrättsliga aspekter

Sammanfattning: This thesis considers the complex of problems arising when an animal is sick, injured or in other ways, through its behaviour shows signs of ill-health while it is outside the care of its owner. The purpose of this thesis is to examine who can be held responsible in situations when an animal is outside the care of its owner, and through an omission is injured as mentioned above. My point of departure is to examine under which conditions the animal keeper has an obligation to act. Within the accomplishment group, the crime is normally committed by negligence, i.e. a corresponding restriction in the circle of culprits. Hence, only persons who have an obligation to act can be held responsible for a corresponding neglecting act. The Animal Welfare Act make demands that animals shall be treated well and shall be protected from unnecessary suffering and disease, for this reason, the animals owners or keepers also has an ethical responsibility. According to the Animal Welfare Act, an injured or sick animal, or an animal that through its behaviour shows signs of ill-health, shall be given necessary care without delay, if necessary by a veterinarian, or other measures shall be taken, unless the illness or the injury is so severe that the animal must be killed immediately. However, it has become more common with agreements prescribing that someone else than the owner takes care of an animal. It can be a matter of rental agreement e.g. a trotting- or race horse trainer accommodate horses for training and racing or horses who are taken care of for pasture et cetera. If an injury occur to the animal while it is in the care of a person other than the owner, questions of responsibility for what has taken place and who is obliged to pay compensation in different situations often arises. A person taking care of another persons property becomes responsible to pay compensation if the owner of the property shows that negligence has caused the injury. If the damage depends on a pure accident, no such obligation to pay compensation according to the central principle exists. To sum up, there is a strict responsibility in these situations, which in principle means that a person who storages property on someone's behalf, in this case an animal, in order to avoid obligation to pay compensation must prove that the injury has been caused by something that does not imply negligence. The essay further describes the official control performed by the control authorities and regulations concerning official control. I also depict when the county administrative board does have the right to prohibit persons to have animals or particular species of animals and when the county administrative board does have the right to decide that an animal shall be taken in charge by the police authority. My conclusion is that the official controls by the control authorities not functions particularly well. This in combinations with factors as inadequate knowledge and deficient employee recourses cause the conclusion that a majority of improvements could done.