Section 432 if several persons causing injury to another person by sharing a violation. You that they will be jointly liable for the compensation for the damage. Use of this you all to know if that can not be sure that the successor group to violate the common people how it is caused by corruption.
Furthermore persons who incite, encourage, or assist in conducting abuse. He shall be deemed to be violated together.
During the party, which shall be jointly liable for the claim that You are liable, that is equal parts unless the circumstances Otherwise the court decision.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 8793/2551.
2 accused of 3 and 4, as the commander of the defendant has a duty to consider and review the documentation petition approved and disbursed in Floor check payments to creditors before the plaintiff's petition to keep for your records. For investigation. Accordance with the Finance Ministry of Interior. The disbursement of funds to keep the money and make money Sanitary Act 2531, when the accused 2, 3 and 4, signed by not moderated by the regulations. Which allows the defendant to a misappropriation of funds to personal use in bad faith. Must be jointly liable with the first defendant.
Violation of a defendant to the plaintiff before and after overlap. Tort Liability Act 2539 authorities have entered into force on November 15, 2539 is, therefore, Section 8, paragraph four, as you provided to staff shall not apply to a violation after that date. at Tort Liability Act, effective staff. Part of a prior violation. Tort Liability Act, the authorities force the defendant to 2 to 3 and 4, with the defendant liable as joint debtors as a Civil and Commercial Code, Section 432.
The Supreme Court 8271 - 8272/2550.
Defendant, a government official accused the Department of Highway 2 when the accident the defendant driving a vehicle of the Government to inspect the scene and collided with a car that is driving m m cause with two passengers in the car. dead. Despite official order filed with the Village, but even the opinion of the officer under investigation is not reported as fact. Appear in the Court of Criminal cases do not have a Civil Code Procedure Section 46 of the civil courts. Facts, the court need not hold the opinion of the officers. Diagnostic evidence in this case would be as the parties attest
In case of violation of many people who do. A violation of everyone must share liability for damage caused by the violation of the plaintiff in full.
Costs relating to merit a funeral. Making history book of the dead and the value of the gift distribution in funeral So as to pay for expenses necessary and appropriate management. The funeral of the deceased plaintiff is entitled to a claim by the two defendants, even a plaintiff who is also a minor, and his wife, Representatives for election is not married to the deceased did not make. Liability in this part of the two defendants is reduced.
Why even abuse cases occurred before Tort Liability Act, the enforcement officer, but when the plaintiff filed this case in four days. The enforcement of this Act. The plaintiff's right to sue state officials or agencies to liability for breach is. Must be in accordance with this Act, so when the case appears that the defendants violated a plaintiff to act in the performance of the second defendant the plaintiff is forbidden to sue the defendant under Section 1 of 5. Tort Liability Act, the staff that this problem even without a party, but a petition which raised issues concerning law. With public order. The Supreme Court has the power to raise their own decision as Civil Code procedure section 142 (5).
Judgement of the Supreme Court 1472/2547.
Defendant is responsible for driving a bus to go and take traveler staying at the hotel. Is responsible for maintaining the buses during the stay at the hotel. To safety. Which is responsible for the hiring of two of the defendant that the defendant, a passenger car drunk alcohol, does not watch itself, but the staff a. sleeping car passenger cars instead of monitoring. A. to hear and speak to hang out outside. And also plug into the car key switch engine. Not to keep them safe. This is done by negligence cause A. Marks illegally driving passengers to travel outside the violation of the plaintiff and the g drive passenger cars such negligence flipped over steel grab some people. Dangerous poles with the plaintiff's damages. Held that a defendant participate in the violation of the plaintiff by making a.. Such damage is a direct result of the negligence of a defendant does not maintain control buses are walking with the machine. Said the security official duties in the employ of the defendant at the first two defendants are liable as co-plaintiff in a breach by the two defendants are also jointly liable with the employer as a defendant.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 880/2546.
Plaintiff's signature on a withdrawal slip is not the same specimen signature in the passbook and the word I open a savings account explicitly, but only similar. Normally, if a consumer. Employees of the defendant, a bank will not pay. But because the defendant paid to an employee working in two offices a defendant with his trusty and relatively flexible, pay no attention to the importance that the handwriting The withdrawal is a sign that real or not, especially in the case. The plaintiff is the recipient sign a withdrawal slip, but not self-financing to the plaintiff. Employees of the defendant at a still pay money to the defendant to two instead of the circumstances clearly show that employees of the defendant to a gross negligence in paying money to the defendant to two defendants a need to co-defendants to 2 liability. plaintiff
Plaintiff deposit passbook to the defendant to two because trust defendants 2, a nephew of the plaintiff and manages the plaintiff deposits with the defendant, an even cover, back cover has prompted depositors to keep the passbook. own. It is only a suggestion, not an agreement to deposit the plaintiff did not receive the passbook. And the advice caveat. Because the two defendants as receivers and keep the passbook from the start instead. The defendant. 2 withdrawals from deposit account to the plaintiff. Is caused by the negligence of employees of the defendant, one is not a direct result of the plaintiff's deposit passbook to the defendant to 2 to hold is not that the plaintiff has the negligent actions violated the defendant to two by the defendant. 1 must be associated with the second defendant liable to plaintiff in full.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 793/2546.
While the scene for the day. While people driving cars that the plaintiff-insurance company to overtake the car drove up and away And then back into the original channel bus. The defendant drove away from the plaintiff's car insurance to the back. Would see all the time and should use caution due to slow speed of the car. After a period of rain, slippery roads. To prevent accidents, and the defendant may use such caution was. That the plaintiff's car insurance to sail back into the original box and bus. Defendant driving away car about 2 meters, but the defendant can not brake to stop the car immediately. The result was that the defendant car driver hit the car at the end of the plaintiff-insurance. Show that the defendant did not exercise caution in conditions such that a person shall be in accordance with Nature and circumstances The defendant is negligent party more than the driver's car insurance to the plaintiff. Liability for damages to the two-thirds to the plaintiff the right to inherit from the insured.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 6392/2545.
Defendant, a contractor building adjacent to the boundary of land of the plaintiff which the plaintiff parents room. Live with The fraction of construction materials inside the house drop and the fish pond. The result was that the plaintiff Cartpo fantasy fish raised in ponds at a dead defendant contractor accused the two supervisors and co-defendant co-insurers must be liable to the plaintiff.
Fancy Fish Cartpo 7 of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is a good buy fish species imported from Japan. The plaintiff raised a good fish. A fish pond ecosystem at both room and water drainage system. Having regard to the purchase price of water, electricity, food cost and maintenance time that the plaintiff in the raise fish until the fish Dead for more than six years of the seven fish had been submitted and was awarded until all the people. The proposed purchase price is 150,000 baht per fish, that the plaintiff is indeed gratifying and highly valuable in the minds of the plaintiff. May not be price of fish in the market fantasy Cartpo a criterion to determine. Damages. Considering the circumstances and severity of the abuse. That there should be compensation to the plaintiff 700,000 Baht
Judgement of the Supreme Court 6933/2540.
Although the listening that Defendant to strike or cast pile was completed. But condominium construction dispute, it must still continue to complete the old jobs, which will take over one of the defendants completed a day of counting age. Sued for not so long as the defendant to carry out the construction of the building, which is why the plaintiff has been damaged would hold that the defendants 2 to 4 consecutive violated the plaintiff's always been as long as it is. Plaintiffs to claim damages from the defendant. Because the action was. From the date the defendant disputed condominium construction was completed last month in March 2535 which held that the plaintiff knew of the infringement and the will should be aware of the claims. The defendant since that date. The plaintiff filed this lawsuit on March 19, 2535 not later than 1 year did not terminate the plaintiff's case the Commercial Code, Section 448, first paragraph.
Defendant claimed that petition. The hammer drill will cast piles in the construction of condominiums is S. Ltd., a third party. Defendants need not pay damages to the plaintiff. Is the case, many individuals who cause damage to the plaintiff by jointly violated. Although it can not be sure that people know what is causing it any damage. Co-defendant is liable to the plaintiff under Section 432.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 5653/2537.
Accused 1 and 2 are driving car crash by foreign plaintiffs in violation of them may not be carelessness and negligence, discrimination is much less than that one must listen to each other equally negligent. The court has the power to determine the liability of defendants 1 and 2, the circumstance that the defendant 1 and 2 violated the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 438 by the defendants 1 and 2 jointly liable for the consequences of the violations they made. the plaintiff was.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 1472/2506.
Court of First Instance sentenced the defendant to participate in the liability of the minor child (the defendant do not violate the defendant in this appeal. Both also agree that an answer like, and then Court of First Instance sentenced the defendant in this petition can not
Civil and Commercial Code, Section 432 last paragraph as provisions for separation of liability between wrongdoers together. That is not liable to creditors. This is the first paragraph. Provided by joint liability, then they must use the word "sharing" means. Each person must pay debt completely. But creditors are paid, any payment from all or part of any debtor despite all still be bound in every person until the debt is paid completely. According to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 291.
Property damage by making them illegal is a violation. When done together, it is common to abuse. And must be jointly liable. Law intended to action Not see the effect of the damage that has separated or not. Despite knowing that the person which causes damage. But if they do abuse combined. All together, it is liable under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 432.
Furthermore persons who incite, encourage, or assist in conducting abuse. He shall be deemed to be violated together.
During the party, which shall be jointly liable for the claim that You are liable, that is equal parts unless the circumstances Otherwise the court decision.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 8793/2551.
2 accused of 3 and 4, as the commander of the defendant has a duty to consider and review the documentation petition approved and disbursed in Floor check payments to creditors before the plaintiff's petition to keep for your records. For investigation. Accordance with the Finance Ministry of Interior. The disbursement of funds to keep the money and make money Sanitary Act 2531, when the accused 2, 3 and 4, signed by not moderated by the regulations. Which allows the defendant to a misappropriation of funds to personal use in bad faith. Must be jointly liable with the first defendant.
Violation of a defendant to the plaintiff before and after overlap. Tort Liability Act 2539 authorities have entered into force on November 15, 2539 is, therefore, Section 8, paragraph four, as you provided to staff shall not apply to a violation after that date. at Tort Liability Act, effective staff. Part of a prior violation. Tort Liability Act, the authorities force the defendant to 2 to 3 and 4, with the defendant liable as joint debtors as a Civil and Commercial Code, Section 432.
The Supreme Court 8271 - 8272/2550.
Defendant, a government official accused the Department of Highway 2 when the accident the defendant driving a vehicle of the Government to inspect the scene and collided with a car that is driving m m cause with two passengers in the car. dead. Despite official order filed with the Village, but even the opinion of the officer under investigation is not reported as fact. Appear in the Court of Criminal cases do not have a Civil Code Procedure Section 46 of the civil courts. Facts, the court need not hold the opinion of the officers. Diagnostic evidence in this case would be as the parties attest
In case of violation of many people who do. A violation of everyone must share liability for damage caused by the violation of the plaintiff in full.
Costs relating to merit a funeral. Making history book of the dead and the value of the gift distribution in funeral So as to pay for expenses necessary and appropriate management. The funeral of the deceased plaintiff is entitled to a claim by the two defendants, even a plaintiff who is also a minor, and his wife, Representatives for election is not married to the deceased did not make. Liability in this part of the two defendants is reduced.
Why even abuse cases occurred before Tort Liability Act, the enforcement officer, but when the plaintiff filed this case in four days. The enforcement of this Act. The plaintiff's right to sue state officials or agencies to liability for breach is. Must be in accordance with this Act, so when the case appears that the defendants violated a plaintiff to act in the performance of the second defendant the plaintiff is forbidden to sue the defendant under Section 1 of 5. Tort Liability Act, the staff that this problem even without a party, but a petition which raised issues concerning law. With public order. The Supreme Court has the power to raise their own decision as Civil Code procedure section 142 (5).
Judgement of the Supreme Court 1472/2547.
Defendant is responsible for driving a bus to go and take traveler staying at the hotel. Is responsible for maintaining the buses during the stay at the hotel. To safety. Which is responsible for the hiring of two of the defendant that the defendant, a passenger car drunk alcohol, does not watch itself, but the staff a. sleeping car passenger cars instead of monitoring. A. to hear and speak to hang out outside. And also plug into the car key switch engine. Not to keep them safe. This is done by negligence cause A. Marks illegally driving passengers to travel outside the violation of the plaintiff and the g drive passenger cars such negligence flipped over steel grab some people. Dangerous poles with the plaintiff's damages. Held that a defendant participate in the violation of the plaintiff by making a.. Such damage is a direct result of the negligence of a defendant does not maintain control buses are walking with the machine. Said the security official duties in the employ of the defendant at the first two defendants are liable as co-plaintiff in a breach by the two defendants are also jointly liable with the employer as a defendant.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 880/2546.
Plaintiff's signature on a withdrawal slip is not the same specimen signature in the passbook and the word I open a savings account explicitly, but only similar. Normally, if a consumer. Employees of the defendant, a bank will not pay. But because the defendant paid to an employee working in two offices a defendant with his trusty and relatively flexible, pay no attention to the importance that the handwriting The withdrawal is a sign that real or not, especially in the case. The plaintiff is the recipient sign a withdrawal slip, but not self-financing to the plaintiff. Employees of the defendant at a still pay money to the defendant to two instead of the circumstances clearly show that employees of the defendant to a gross negligence in paying money to the defendant to two defendants a need to co-defendants to 2 liability. plaintiff
Plaintiff deposit passbook to the defendant to two because trust defendants 2, a nephew of the plaintiff and manages the plaintiff deposits with the defendant, an even cover, back cover has prompted depositors to keep the passbook. own. It is only a suggestion, not an agreement to deposit the plaintiff did not receive the passbook. And the advice caveat. Because the two defendants as receivers and keep the passbook from the start instead. The defendant. 2 withdrawals from deposit account to the plaintiff. Is caused by the negligence of employees of the defendant, one is not a direct result of the plaintiff's deposit passbook to the defendant to 2 to hold is not that the plaintiff has the negligent actions violated the defendant to two by the defendant. 1 must be associated with the second defendant liable to plaintiff in full.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 793/2546.
While the scene for the day. While people driving cars that the plaintiff-insurance company to overtake the car drove up and away And then back into the original channel bus. The defendant drove away from the plaintiff's car insurance to the back. Would see all the time and should use caution due to slow speed of the car. After a period of rain, slippery roads. To prevent accidents, and the defendant may use such caution was. That the plaintiff's car insurance to sail back into the original box and bus. Defendant driving away car about 2 meters, but the defendant can not brake to stop the car immediately. The result was that the defendant car driver hit the car at the end of the plaintiff-insurance. Show that the defendant did not exercise caution in conditions such that a person shall be in accordance with Nature and circumstances The defendant is negligent party more than the driver's car insurance to the plaintiff. Liability for damages to the two-thirds to the plaintiff the right to inherit from the insured.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 6392/2545.
Defendant, a contractor building adjacent to the boundary of land of the plaintiff which the plaintiff parents room. Live with The fraction of construction materials inside the house drop and the fish pond. The result was that the plaintiff Cartpo fantasy fish raised in ponds at a dead defendant contractor accused the two supervisors and co-defendant co-insurers must be liable to the plaintiff.
Fancy Fish Cartpo 7 of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is a good buy fish species imported from Japan. The plaintiff raised a good fish. A fish pond ecosystem at both room and water drainage system. Having regard to the purchase price of water, electricity, food cost and maintenance time that the plaintiff in the raise fish until the fish Dead for more than six years of the seven fish had been submitted and was awarded until all the people. The proposed purchase price is 150,000 baht per fish, that the plaintiff is indeed gratifying and highly valuable in the minds of the plaintiff. May not be price of fish in the market fantasy Cartpo a criterion to determine. Damages. Considering the circumstances and severity of the abuse. That there should be compensation to the plaintiff 700,000 Baht
Judgement of the Supreme Court 6933/2540.
Although the listening that Defendant to strike or cast pile was completed. But condominium construction dispute, it must still continue to complete the old jobs, which will take over one of the defendants completed a day of counting age. Sued for not so long as the defendant to carry out the construction of the building, which is why the plaintiff has been damaged would hold that the defendants 2 to 4 consecutive violated the plaintiff's always been as long as it is. Plaintiffs to claim damages from the defendant. Because the action was. From the date the defendant disputed condominium construction was completed last month in March 2535 which held that the plaintiff knew of the infringement and the will should be aware of the claims. The defendant since that date. The plaintiff filed this lawsuit on March 19, 2535 not later than 1 year did not terminate the plaintiff's case the Commercial Code, Section 448, first paragraph.
Defendant claimed that petition. The hammer drill will cast piles in the construction of condominiums is S. Ltd., a third party. Defendants need not pay damages to the plaintiff. Is the case, many individuals who cause damage to the plaintiff by jointly violated. Although it can not be sure that people know what is causing it any damage. Co-defendant is liable to the plaintiff under Section 432.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 5653/2537.
Accused 1 and 2 are driving car crash by foreign plaintiffs in violation of them may not be carelessness and negligence, discrimination is much less than that one must listen to each other equally negligent. The court has the power to determine the liability of defendants 1 and 2, the circumstance that the defendant 1 and 2 violated the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 438 by the defendants 1 and 2 jointly liable for the consequences of the violations they made. the plaintiff was.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 1472/2506.
Court of First Instance sentenced the defendant to participate in the liability of the minor child (the defendant do not violate the defendant in this appeal. Both also agree that an answer like, and then Court of First Instance sentenced the defendant in this petition can not
Civil and Commercial Code, Section 432 last paragraph as provisions for separation of liability between wrongdoers together. That is not liable to creditors. This is the first paragraph. Provided by joint liability, then they must use the word "sharing" means. Each person must pay debt completely. But creditors are paid, any payment from all or part of any debtor despite all still be bound in every person until the debt is paid completely. According to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 291.
Property damage by making them illegal is a violation. When done together, it is common to abuse. And must be jointly liable. Law intended to action Not see the effect of the damage that has separated or not. Despite knowing that the person which causes damage. But if they do abuse combined. All together, it is liable under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 432.
