Preskriptionens funktioner : Fordringsrättsliga och ersättningsrättsliga problem i komparativ belysning

Sammanfattning: The starting point of this thesis is the Swedish rule regarding limitation of non-contractual tort claims. According to this rule, based on Swedish common law, such a tort claim is limited by statute 10 years after the occurrence of the event giving rise to the damage. As a consequence, a tort claim may be time barred even before the creditor has gained knowledge of the damage, making it impossible for him to interrupt the limitation period. In order to investigate the purpose and workings of limitation periods, the common law rules on limitation in France, Germany and Sweden are compared. One of the results of the comparison is the finding that there exists a deep kinship between two principally different limitation periods regarding adverse possession or extinctiv limitation. Another finding is that the scope of limitation not merely is to contravene the effects of the passing of time as to the quality of the evidence, the reliability of evidence assumed to diminish with time. The scope is also to rinse society from old claims, which have not been put forward. A third finding is that the knowledge of the creditor of his claim is essential for the proper working of the institution of limitation.In the second part of the study, the rules on limitation of non-contractual tort claims in France, Germany, Norway, Denmark and Sweden are compared. In addition, the limitation rules in these countries regarding claims stemming from insurance contracts are also compared. Even if the volutary claims spring out of a contract, tort claims are deeply intertwined with insurance and insurance protection in modern societies. The insurance aspect thus cannot be neglected. The principally most important finding in this part is the observation that the Swedish solution on the problem of limitation of non-contractual tort claims is unique. All the other countries allow the limitation period to start when the creditor has sufiecient knowledge to file an action with the court. On the other hand, the Swedish system has a very long limitation period for insurance claims, which may be a result of the Swedish tendency to more rely on insurance solutions than on tort law for the protection of the citizens.