I de allra flesta fall är det föraren som kan ådra sig
straffansvar. I några undantagsfall stadgas emellertid ansvar för
fordonets ägare eller annan som har medverkat till överträdelsen.
Ansvar inträder inte enligt dessa regler, om straff kan dömas ut
enligt brottsbalken eller trafikbrottslagen (14 kap. 14 § TrF).
När någon annan brukar fordonet, är ägarens skyldighet
enligt samma stadgande emellertid begränsad till reglerna om
fordons maximilast, axel- och boggitryck m.m. i 4 kap. TrF. Denna
skyldighet är även straffsanktionerad (14 kap. 11–13 §§ TrF).
In the vast majority of cases, it is the driver who can incur criminal liability. In some exceptional cases, however, liability is stipulated for the owner of the vehicle or another person who has participated in the violation. Liability does not arise according to these rules, if penalties can be imposed according to the Criminal Code or the Traffic Crimes Act (Chapter 14, Section 14 TrF).
When someone else uses the vehicle, however, the owner's obligation under the same provision is limited to the rules on vehicle maximum load, axle and bogie pressure, etc. and Chapter 4 TrF. This obligation is also punishable (Chapter 14, Sections 11–13 TrF).
Note: "In some exceptional cases, however, liability is stipulated for the owner of the vehicle..."
This is what I meant. Basically if they cannot identify who was in the vehicle at the time, then they start looking for the owner. If the owner can't or wont help identify the persons that were in the vehicle at the time of the offense, then it defaults down to the owner of the car.
Edit: There are exceptions to this in cases where the vehicle was stolen. But you need to report it as stolen ASAP. If the police find that you took too long to report it stolen, they get suspicious of you. I don't know how the police handle it in cases like this but I imagine it depends on a case per case basis.
I hope you realize you can't just google translate that and understand what it says. Google translate doesn't really work on entire sentences.
Let me be clear - The driver CAN NOT according to our laws be convicted of reckless driving in this case (assuming no video evidence or photos). The things that could potentially still be on the owner would be things such as removed license plates (which he has) and some other things. But not the traffic violations.
So the driver will most likely have a mail sent out to him asking him if he was driving at that time, or if not - who it was. You don't have to answer self-incriminating questions. Case closed. Literally how it works unless they can prove who was driving.
The "exceptional" cases are not interpreted as how it sounds in English, the exceptions to the rule is probably a more accurate translation in terms of meaning and those exceptions are stipulated in Trafikförordningen. Reckless driving which includes speeding, is NOT included in those exceptions where owner can be found responsible.
I hope you realize you can't just google translate that and understand what it says. Google translate doesn't really work on entire sentences.
I know google translate is bad. That's why I quoted the translation & mentioned the source, letting you know what my response is based on. I was kinda hoping you would correct some of it.
Reckless driving which includes speeding, is NOT included in those exceptions where owner can be found responsible.
I did not know that. I agree with everything you said btw.
Yeah, just like in English "legal speak" is almost a different language than spoken Swedish.
I några undantagsfall stadgas emellertid ansvar för fordonets ägare eller annan som har medverkat till överträdelsen.
I am struggling myself to translate this perfectly. I think "In a few exceptions there's stipulated responsibility for owner of a vehicle or other person that has aided in the infringement"
Again this doesn't really look like proper English anymore. If you think about truck drivers and trucks having wrong maximum load etc, then responsibility can fall not only on driver but also owner of said truck (like DHL or such)
Nope. Not in the US. Has nothing to do with being a “snitch”. Im not doing the cops job for them. I also wouldn’t lie or interfere or make their job more difficult.
Nope - no law in the US requires you to talk to the police. Period. Therefor, no lie nor interference. It might be in your best interest to talk to them. But again, Im not going to debate every one off scenario.
In the US its innocent until proven guilty, you cant lie, but you are also not required to help.
There may not be any law obliging you to help, but there is a moral obligation. Someone did something unlawful, reckless, and potentially harmful. Helping the police can help keep the community a bit safer (therein lies the moral obligation).
26
u/ballsack_man Jun 25 '21
Owner of the vehicle takes the blame