Tredjemansskador enligt AB 04 - Mot bakgrund av Högsta domstolens tolkningsmetod beträffande entreprenadavtal

Sammanfattning: One distinctive characteristic of construction projects is that it generally consists of complex and time-consuming constructions requiring collaboration across multiple disciplines. The term construction refers to larger construction buildings, constructions and installation works performed by a contractor on behalf of a contracting authority. Swedish law does not regulate this complex field. This has therefor resulted in the wide use of standard forms for consultancy and construction agreements where the standard agreement, AB 04, is the main agreement in the construction industry as well as for this thesis. The purpose of this thesis is to clarify and to examine the scope of third party damage as referred to in AB 04. A third party damage can by definition be explained as a material loss due to another persons property or personal injury. Chapter 5 § 13 AB 04 regulates how this responsibility shall be shared between the contracting authority and the contractor in the case of a third party damage. The definition of who can be included in the third party-term as well as which types of liability the provision includes, is essential for the proportion of liabilities between the contracting authority and the contractor. Such a definition cannot be found in the AB-agreement. Damage due to a construction project can cause damage both to the parties set in the construction agreement as well as to a third party. In such an event, the question is who of the parties shall be held liable for such damages. It is not possible to, in an agreement, regulate who shall be held liable towards a third party at the first stage. Chapter 5 § 13 AB 04 regulates who is to bear the ultimate liability, if the client or contractor shall be imposed liable for the damages issued by the other party. During the last years the Swedish Supreme Court has in a number of precedent-setting rulings analysed various provisions in the AB-agreements. The Court has evolved a methodological interpretation method according to which the third party provision can be interpreted. The foundation for this interpretation includes an observation of the common intention of the parties, the agreements objective content and the wording of the provision. The Court may also employ a more liberal interpretation, which includes giving optional provisions a specific consideration. After having interpreted the third party provision in the light of this methodology, I believe that more speaks for an extended interpretation of the provision to include all cases of non-contractual liability and to some extent contractual liability, than for a limited interpretation to include only one type of responsibility. The third party provision has not been subject to any change during the last revision of the AB 92. Nevertheless, due to the uncertainty in the industry the question will hopefully be answered by the now impending revision of the AB 04.