Court of Appeal for Western Sweden B 7654-24 – Increased corporate fine against municipality following death in a school setting

During a recess, a pupil fell from a rocky outcrop at an elementary school and died from the injuries sustained. In the case, the Court of Appeal upheld the District Court’s assessment that the responsible officials within the municipality had, through negligence, contributed to the death. The Court of Appeal found that the municipality, due to organizational shortcomings and inadequate procedures and controls, had not done what could reasonably be required to prevent the offense. The Court of Appeal therefore imposed a corporate fine on the municipality and increased the amount (relative to the District Court) with reference to the fact that the incident occurred in a school environment during compulsory schooling, as well as to the municipality’s longstanding deficiencies in the work environment and failure to take adequate protective measures.

In 2022, a pupil at an elementary school died after falling from a rocky outcrop in the schoolyard. Charges for a work environment offense were brought. The District Court found that a work environment offense had been committed and imposed a corporate fine of SEK 1,200,000 on the municipality. The judgment was appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Legal principles

Under Chapter 3, Section 7, first paragraph of the Swedish Criminal Code (1962:700), a person who through negligence causes another’s death is convicted of causing another’s death. If the act consists of someone intentionally or negligently disregarding their obligations under the Work Environment Act (1977:1160) to prevent ill health and accidents, the act is to be assessed as a work environment offence. In this context, it can be noted that pupils are equated with employees under the Work Environment Act and that the employer, i.e., the municipality or an independent principal, is responsible for the work environment at the school.

The Court of Appeal’s assessment

At the outset, the Court of Appeal noted that the rocky outcrop from which the pupil fell posed a serious risk of injury if adequate protective measures were lacking. The Court also emphasized that the municipality’s officials were aware of this risk.

The Court of Appeal then proceeded to assess the work environment efforts and emphasized that the investigation showed significant deficiencies in the systematic work environment management (Sw. systematiska arbetsmiljöarbetet) concerning the school’s outdoor environment. It was established that no regular risk assessments had been carried out regarding conditions in the schoolyard and that the measures taken, such as the installation of fences, had not been documented in writing in accordance with applicable regulations and had not been followed up. The Court further pointed out that children had been present on the outcrop and that it was therefore clear that the measures taken had not been sufficient to prevent fall accidents. Nor were other risk‑reducing measures, such as supervision by recess monitors, considered sufficient. The Court of Appeal therefore found that the responsible officials had disregarded their obligations under the Work Environment Act.

Furthermore, the Court of Appeal found that the officials within the municipality had reason to foresee the risk of serious injury or death, as the risks associated with the outcrop had been known for a long time. According to the Court, the negligence attributable to them had substantially contributed to the pupil’s death, and a work environment offence had thus been committed. At the same time, there was no clearly designated responsible person within the municipality, which meant that the Court could not take a position on whether the offence had been committed by a person in a leading position or by a person with supervisory responsibility.

The Court of Appeal also emphasized that there was no clear allocation of tasks and responsibilities between the elementary school administration and the local administration, and that the municipality lacked an overarching control function to ensure that the systematic work environment management functioned properly. Against the background of these organizational deficiencies, with inadequate routines and controls, the municipality had not done what could reasonably have been required to prevent the offence.

In summary, the Court of Appeal found that municipal officials had neglected their obligations under the Work Environment Act and thereby caused the pupil’s death. The Court of Appeal therefore imposed a corporate fine of SEK 1,500,000 on the municipality. The Court of Appeal justified the increase of the corporate fine on the grounds that the work environment offense had been committed in a school environment where children were present due to compulsory schooling, and that the municipality had, over a long period, failed in its work on the work environment and neglected to take the necessary protective measures.

Setterwalls’ comments: The judgement highlights education providers’ far-reaching responsibilities for the work environment and how shortcomings in systematic work environment management in schools can lead to criminal liability. However, much of the Court of Appeal’s reasoning is generally applicable beyond school operations. Known and serious risks of accidents cannot be managed solely through simpler measures and supervision; they require effective, documented protective measures with continuous follow-up. The judgment also emphasizes the need for a clear allocation of responsibilities in work environment matters between the relevant administrations within a municipality and serves as a reminder that operations must be organized so that compliance with applicable requirements can be monitored continuously. Finally, the judgment indicates that the compulsory nature of the school environment, resulting from compulsory schooling, can justify a heightened sanction value when risks are not managed in accordance with applicable requirements.