By the end of the twentieth century, and after a long line of conflicting case law, the question about the basis of liability in nuisance was settled: in Scotland, damages are awarded only upon proof of fault (RHM Bakeries (Scotland) Ltd v Strathclyde Regional Council 1985 SC (HL) 17). Fault, in turn, can adopt many forms: malice, intention, recklessness, negligence, and conduct causing a special risk of abnormal damage (Kennedy v Glenbelle Ltd 1995 SC 95). Many aspects of this seemingly clear picture, however, remain problematic. On the one hand, the way in which this model is interpreted and applied gives place to particular forms of liability that can actually be characterised as strict. On the other hand, two other areas of the law of neighbours that overlap with the scope of nuisance do not fit entirely this model, namely the regulation of disputes over uses of water and of those arising from withdrawal of support. The main argument of this thesis is that damages claims in the context of neighbourhood are governed by two distinct rules: a general fault-based liability rule for nuisance, and an exceptional strict liability rule for abnormally dangerous conduct. For the first of these rules, the thesis offers an evaluation of the fault model adopted in Kennedy v Glenbelle Ltd, explaining the interaction between its different elements and highlighting the developments that can result in forms of strict liability. For the second of these rules, the thesis develops an analysis of its elements and nature, as well as a proposal that delineates its scope of application. This two-rule model offers a justification for the current structure of the law applicable to disputes over uses of water. The strict liability rule applicable to interferences with the natural flow of watercourses, traditionally explained as based upon the infringement of property rights, is better explained as danger-based. The regulation of disputes arising from withdrawal of support, however, is not consistent with this model, even though they have also been characterised as nuisances. It is argued that this framework entails unjustified inconsistencies, both internal and by reference to the model proposed, and that it should be adjusted accordingly.

This thesis discusses the responsibility of and risk for infestations of spruce bark beetle. The spruce bark beetle, Ips typographus, is a natural part of the Swedish forest ecosystem but causes severe financial damage in forestry. Since 2018, the spruce bark beetle infestations have been substantial in Sweden. The first task of the thesis is to evaluate the balance between the forest production interests and the environmental interests, based on the legal regulation of spruce bark beetle control. Production and environment are the equal aims of the Swedish Forestry Act. The regulation of spruce bark beetle control differs depending on whether the forest is in a conservation area or not. For example, owners of forests outside conservation areas are obliged to take care of damaged, fresh wood of spruce and pine, while such an obligation in general does not exist in conservation areas. In this evaluation, I conclude that the balance between the two interests in the spruce bark beetle regulation is good as a whole.  The second question of the thesis is the legal allocation of risk for spruce bark beetle infestations. In this investigation, it is examined whether established law presents a possibility to claim damages for spruce bark beetle infestations that may derive from an adjacent forest. The conclusion drawn is that the regulation of compensation for certain kinds of environmental damage in the Swedish Environmental Code probably would not be applicable as a legal basis for such a claim. By contrast, neighbour law and the Swedish Torts Act could be used as the basis of an action for damages. However, to prove causality regarding the origins of a specific infestation might bring problems, which altogether means that an action for damages faces considerable difficulties. Therefore lastly, some alternative ways of allocating the risk for spruce bark beetle infestations are presented. / I denna uppsats diskuteras ansvar och risk för granbarkborreangrepp. Granbarkborren, Ips typographus, är en naturlig del av skogens ekosystem men orsakar stora ekonomiska skador i skogsbruket. Sedan 2018 har granbarkborreangreppen i Sverige varit omfattande.  Uppsatsens första uppgift är att utifrån regleringen av granbarkborrebekämpning i skogen utvärdera avvägningen mellan produktions- och miljöintresset, som är skogsvårdslagens jämställda mål. Den rättsliga regleringen av bekämpning av granbarkborrar skiljer sig åt beroende på om skogen är skyddad eller oskyddad. Bland annat är ägare av oskyddad skog ålagda att ta hand om skadat, färskt barrvirke, medan en sådan skyldighet ofta saknas i skyddade områden. I utvärderingen kommer jag fram till att avvägningen mellan de två intressena över lag är god i granbarkborreregleringen.  Den andra frågan i uppsatsen är fördelningen av risk för granbarkborreangrepp. För att undersöka det utreds om det enligt gällande rätt är möjligt att få skadestånd för granbarkborreangrepp som kan härstamma från närliggande skyddad eller oskyddad skog. Slutsatsen är att 32 kap. miljöbalken förmodligen inte skulle vara tillämplig, medan däremot grannelagsrätten och skadeståndslagen kan läggas till grund för en sådan talan. Att bevisa orsakssambanden kan dock innebära problem, vilket sammantaget gör att en skadeståndstalan för granbarkborreangrepp från närliggande skog möter ansenliga hinder. Sist presenteras därför några alternativa sätt att fördela risken för barkborreangrepp.