Section 428 of the employers do not have liability for any damage caused to the Contractor up to outside employment during the work. Unless the employer will be guilty in order to do the job or in order that they provide or to find a contractor selected.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 2335/2551.
The first plaintiff and the defendant at a separate damages or claims that a defendant agreed to pay to the plaintiff as the first of two parts. The first part of the damages, including loss of property which is land. Building town houses of the first plaintiff has been damaged by any one who has not estimated correctly and the survey by the Institute, which both Within both parties agree that a defendant in October 2537, the contractor will be responsible for damage that occurred, and values. Spending in all polls. The second part, including claims of nuisance and safety Edืonrngon about Life and Health. The damage to the latter part of this defendant, one has to pay to the plaintiff that an extensive period of time since the dispute until the month in December 2537 and a 500,000 baht, but if the construction of the structure of the building is not completed within the period of the defendant, one also. to give compensation to the plaintiff that a more per month 35,000 baht since January January 2538 onwards are not calculated together plaintiffs who first is still entitled to receive compensation for damages in the property which the Agreement Article 1 of the plaintiff. The first received no pay.
Agreement Article 1. It says. Damage to buildings that could damage buildings Town House Law is implemented. Survey Institute, which both parties agree by March in October 2537 not to agree to pay much money. The parties agreed to pay when and where and how the agreement is still a defendant liable for violation of the original debt. Is not an agreed settlement between the plaintiff and defendant, a memorandum of agreement which will make such a compromise agreement. The liability of a defendant in violation of debt remains the third defendant, who must be hired jointly liable for the defendant to have an under the Commercial Code, Section 428.
The contract the defendant first must be constructed according to plan and order the defendant to 3 on the defendant to three of employment, a fault in the work order to do so must share with the defendant, a contractor liable for the. that a plaintiff's damages arising from the construction of large-scale protests, which have a house. House and various buildings. Located close to each other before.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 390/2550.
The defendant who hired a contractor to determine how trees and people merge. Control take care of trees all the time. But on the day of cutting down fruit trees and the high voltage cable laying in the land of the plaintiff. Deficiency caused no damage to any control That contractors do not have expertise in cutting a tree that will cause. Damage to adjacent buildings or refuses to follow the correct procedures. Considered that the defendant is guilty in order to do the job. Or the order provided. Or, to find a contractor selected. Defendant is liable to the plaintiff under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 428.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 162/2544.
Civil and Commercial Code, Section 428 states that "employers do not have the liability for damage caused to the Contractor up to outside employment during the work. Unless the employer is a mistake in the work order made, or in order that they provided or selected by the Contractor, the plaintiff is responsible must attest to obtain that the defendant is guilty under Section 428 as But as the facts attest that the plaintiff did not appear that the defendant is guilty in order to do or in order that they provide to the contractor and how to select the contractor company, which is a function of pile and foundation construction. It appeared to be a special knowledge in the construction of tall buildings. The defendant is engaged Por operator to be in the form construction. This means that the defendant would not have become involved in working order or in any way. It is the duty of both companies. When damage occurs. The plaintiff will have to remove claims from the construction company, a function which carries out the violation. The defendant did not commit to any one of the defendants liable under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 428.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 1942/2543.
Even a defendant who is hired as a defendant, 6 and 7 counties in the construction of restaurants. But that was the first defendant did not release the defendant, 6 and 7 counties in accordance with the plan alone, the defendant, an engineer for a. supervising a. All counties are in behalf of a defendant. A. When I see the pile of the defendant, 6 and 7, causing damages to the plaintiff, but not to ban or to change how they work to prevent damage to the plaintiff. Held that a defendant is guilty in order to do the job with
Judgement of the Supreme Court 1882/2542.
Wall fence of the plaintiff's damages from the pile Contractor accused of home construction. The defendant was waiting supervision at all times consider the pile as the command The defendant's direct Plaintiff's prosecution of this lecture that During construction the defendant. Have been using drop hammers. Show that vibrations from pile The plaintiff may fear that the fence, concrete wall and damaged the house. I ordered the plaintiff to the defendant resolved. But to ignore the defendant and also drop hammers to finish. Also not find a way to prevent damage to the plaintiff's home. And by the negligence of the defendant making concrete fence walls and roof beams C.s.e. concrete fence wall of the house on the plaintiff. As well as other accessories affixed to the wall, fence, concrete Have been damaged. The lecture, which sued the defendant liable. The action of the defendant under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 420 is not the defendant liable under Section 428, which is. Employers do not have the liability for any damage contractors. Can cause up to a third party during the job hiring. Unless the employer will be guilty in order to do the job. Or in order that they provide. Or, to find a contractor selected. Because the indictment did not describe that the defendant hired someone. And the error in order to do work. Although liability under Section 420 and Section 428 may overlap, but plaintiff's complaint. It must show clearly the state of charge and request Cmbeongceb. The claim is based on the principle of charges under the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 172 of the lower court sentenced both defendants to liability under Section 428, thus exceeding the application judge prohibited under the Code of Civil Procedure Section 142, paragraph one
Judgement of the Supreme Court 2540/2539.
Defendant, a property owner with the construction and pile allowing the defendant to second applicant constructed on the land have accused the three as the employer to the defendant at 4 the pile on the property when the damage to the building of the plaintiffs that one. located on land adjacent defendants 1 to 3, they had to monitor repairs to some circumstances that would demonstrate that the defendants 1 to 3, a shared interest in building on the land of the defendant: 1. Although the defendant three will be hired defendant to four counties, but for the benefit of the defendant to 1 to 3, by holding that the defendants 1 to 3, a jointly hired the defendant to four in the counties, which usually Employers do not have the liability for damage caused to the Contractor up to outside work during the employer unless the employer will be guilty in order to do the job or in their statement. provided or selected by the Contractor for the defendant to four piles according to chart a plan for construction of the defendants 1 to 3 miles fence wall of the plaintiff only 2 meters was accused of four has complied with the order of the defendant. 1 through 3, defendants 1 to 3, the employer is in the wrong part of a work order to do damage to a plaintiff. The District Court determined that a plaintiff's damages by the testimony of the network per se. Testimony of the plaintiff that a certificate, photos, and then estimate that the concrete floor of the building wall, fence, swimming pool and a lot of damage so proper.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 2540/2539.
Case between the plaintiff and the defendant, 1 and 2 and 3, even though the two plaintiffs to sue for damages to the plaintiffs that included, but it was a loss that each has been separately isolated from each other. Calculating capital Individual must be separated by When the plaintiff's case at 2 with the funds to resolve the petition layers not exceeding two hundred thousand Baht No need to petition the facts under the Code of Civil Procedure Section 248, paragraph one of the defendant, a property owner with building and accused the two counties is the construction of the applicant. The consent of the defendant and a third defendant, who hired the defendant to four counties. Moreover, defendant. 1 is a managing partner of the Partnership defendant 3 defendants 1 to 3, is a shared interest in the construction can be considered one of the three defendants are accused of jointly hiring. 4 in the counties defendant four piles according to chart a plan for construction of the defendants 1 to 3, far fence of the plaintiff only 2 meters would realize that the pile size shall make the land side was hurt badly, which will. cause the plaintiff's property damage. Considered to be one of the three defendants are guilty in order to do work that is liable for damages of the plaintiff.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 7818/2538.
The contract states that the second defendant who is hired to construct the model and list a defendant who engaged in all respects and the defendant stipulated that an appointed Wor. Civil Engineering of the defendant as a Foreman on that. that the defendant, 4, which is operated by the defendant's 2, and machinery digging rail drainage older without using poles lean and equipment to prevent the soil break down the homosexual did not orders shall not pretend. Because the soil break down the plaintiff, both have been damaged deemed defendants 1 as the employer is wrong in the work order made by the defendant, a need to jointly liable for the damage that the defendant, two contractors. can lead to action by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 428 because. the control of the defendant, one that controls how the construction is not only responsible for the control of the work as stipulated only
Judgement of the Supreme Court 1999/2538.
The plaintiff sued the defendant for the force to earth dams in the area of land to contact the plaintiff the defendant shall not collapse without the call for action for damages resulting from the violation does not directly address the subject of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 448, paragraph. one which is only 1 year of age and in this case, no law specifically uses prescription under the general rules under Section 193/30 of 10 years old and unmarried. The general principles and then the employer made of no liability for any damage contractors can cause up to a third party during the work on employment unless the employer is a fault in the work order to do or to order they provide or to select by the Contractor as provided in Civil and Commercial Code, Section 428, when the defendant is determined to dig soil and how the defendant with the following statement of the defendant cause the land of the plaintiff's collapse breaking down the defendant must be jointly liable with The plaintiff sued for the dam of reinforced concrete earth length 180 meters, the wishes of the plaintiff wanted to land in the same condition does not collapse into the land of the defendant only where the dam is one way that the plaintiff that would block. soil erosion, but not to the Court of Appeal agreed that the dam is unnecessary to use filling tightly compacted soil to prevent erosion, land of the plaintiff to the defendant's land, the Court of Appeal has the power to do so is not over. request of the plaintiff, but the Court of Appeal sentenced the soil reclamation period is longer than 180 meters beyond the plaintiff's request can not be done.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 984/2531.
Defendant hired pm counties to condominiums by the defendant choose to hire contractors using embedded pile hammer because that cost less than the other bore is well aware that the pile will land side was severely affected. Which causes the plaintiff and the other buildings nearby damaged. But the defendant ignored. Considered that the defendant employer is wrong in order to do work that is liable for such damages to the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued the plaintiffs describe how damage. The split is a list of repairs included in the calculation.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 2335/2551.
The first plaintiff and the defendant at a separate damages or claims that a defendant agreed to pay to the plaintiff as the first of two parts. The first part of the damages, including loss of property which is land. Building town houses of the first plaintiff has been damaged by any one who has not estimated correctly and the survey by the Institute, which both Within both parties agree that a defendant in October 2537, the contractor will be responsible for damage that occurred, and values. Spending in all polls. The second part, including claims of nuisance and safety Edืonrngon about Life and Health. The damage to the latter part of this defendant, one has to pay to the plaintiff that an extensive period of time since the dispute until the month in December 2537 and a 500,000 baht, but if the construction of the structure of the building is not completed within the period of the defendant, one also. to give compensation to the plaintiff that a more per month 35,000 baht since January January 2538 onwards are not calculated together plaintiffs who first is still entitled to receive compensation for damages in the property which the Agreement Article 1 of the plaintiff. The first received no pay.
Agreement Article 1. It says. Damage to buildings that could damage buildings Town House Law is implemented. Survey Institute, which both parties agree by March in October 2537 not to agree to pay much money. The parties agreed to pay when and where and how the agreement is still a defendant liable for violation of the original debt. Is not an agreed settlement between the plaintiff and defendant, a memorandum of agreement which will make such a compromise agreement. The liability of a defendant in violation of debt remains the third defendant, who must be hired jointly liable for the defendant to have an under the Commercial Code, Section 428.
The contract the defendant first must be constructed according to plan and order the defendant to 3 on the defendant to three of employment, a fault in the work order to do so must share with the defendant, a contractor liable for the. that a plaintiff's damages arising from the construction of large-scale protests, which have a house. House and various buildings. Located close to each other before.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 390/2550.
The defendant who hired a contractor to determine how trees and people merge. Control take care of trees all the time. But on the day of cutting down fruit trees and the high voltage cable laying in the land of the plaintiff. Deficiency caused no damage to any control That contractors do not have expertise in cutting a tree that will cause. Damage to adjacent buildings or refuses to follow the correct procedures. Considered that the defendant is guilty in order to do the job. Or the order provided. Or, to find a contractor selected. Defendant is liable to the plaintiff under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 428.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 162/2544.
Civil and Commercial Code, Section 428 states that "employers do not have the liability for damage caused to the Contractor up to outside employment during the work. Unless the employer is a mistake in the work order made, or in order that they provided or selected by the Contractor, the plaintiff is responsible must attest to obtain that the defendant is guilty under Section 428 as But as the facts attest that the plaintiff did not appear that the defendant is guilty in order to do or in order that they provide to the contractor and how to select the contractor company, which is a function of pile and foundation construction. It appeared to be a special knowledge in the construction of tall buildings. The defendant is engaged Por operator to be in the form construction. This means that the defendant would not have become involved in working order or in any way. It is the duty of both companies. When damage occurs. The plaintiff will have to remove claims from the construction company, a function which carries out the violation. The defendant did not commit to any one of the defendants liable under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 428.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 1942/2543.
Even a defendant who is hired as a defendant, 6 and 7 counties in the construction of restaurants. But that was the first defendant did not release the defendant, 6 and 7 counties in accordance with the plan alone, the defendant, an engineer for a. supervising a. All counties are in behalf of a defendant. A. When I see the pile of the defendant, 6 and 7, causing damages to the plaintiff, but not to ban or to change how they work to prevent damage to the plaintiff. Held that a defendant is guilty in order to do the job with
Judgement of the Supreme Court 1882/2542.
Wall fence of the plaintiff's damages from the pile Contractor accused of home construction. The defendant was waiting supervision at all times consider the pile as the command The defendant's direct Plaintiff's prosecution of this lecture that During construction the defendant. Have been using drop hammers. Show that vibrations from pile The plaintiff may fear that the fence, concrete wall and damaged the house. I ordered the plaintiff to the defendant resolved. But to ignore the defendant and also drop hammers to finish. Also not find a way to prevent damage to the plaintiff's home. And by the negligence of the defendant making concrete fence walls and roof beams C.s.e. concrete fence wall of the house on the plaintiff. As well as other accessories affixed to the wall, fence, concrete Have been damaged. The lecture, which sued the defendant liable. The action of the defendant under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 420 is not the defendant liable under Section 428, which is. Employers do not have the liability for any damage contractors. Can cause up to a third party during the job hiring. Unless the employer will be guilty in order to do the job. Or in order that they provide. Or, to find a contractor selected. Because the indictment did not describe that the defendant hired someone. And the error in order to do work. Although liability under Section 420 and Section 428 may overlap, but plaintiff's complaint. It must show clearly the state of charge and request Cmbeongceb. The claim is based on the principle of charges under the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 172 of the lower court sentenced both defendants to liability under Section 428, thus exceeding the application judge prohibited under the Code of Civil Procedure Section 142, paragraph one
Judgement of the Supreme Court 2540/2539.
Defendant, a property owner with the construction and pile allowing the defendant to second applicant constructed on the land have accused the three as the employer to the defendant at 4 the pile on the property when the damage to the building of the plaintiffs that one. located on land adjacent defendants 1 to 3, they had to monitor repairs to some circumstances that would demonstrate that the defendants 1 to 3, a shared interest in building on the land of the defendant: 1. Although the defendant three will be hired defendant to four counties, but for the benefit of the defendant to 1 to 3, by holding that the defendants 1 to 3, a jointly hired the defendant to four in the counties, which usually Employers do not have the liability for damage caused to the Contractor up to outside work during the employer unless the employer will be guilty in order to do the job or in their statement. provided or selected by the Contractor for the defendant to four piles according to chart a plan for construction of the defendants 1 to 3 miles fence wall of the plaintiff only 2 meters was accused of four has complied with the order of the defendant. 1 through 3, defendants 1 to 3, the employer is in the wrong part of a work order to do damage to a plaintiff. The District Court determined that a plaintiff's damages by the testimony of the network per se. Testimony of the plaintiff that a certificate, photos, and then estimate that the concrete floor of the building wall, fence, swimming pool and a lot of damage so proper.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 2540/2539.
Case between the plaintiff and the defendant, 1 and 2 and 3, even though the two plaintiffs to sue for damages to the plaintiffs that included, but it was a loss that each has been separately isolated from each other. Calculating capital Individual must be separated by When the plaintiff's case at 2 with the funds to resolve the petition layers not exceeding two hundred thousand Baht No need to petition the facts under the Code of Civil Procedure Section 248, paragraph one of the defendant, a property owner with building and accused the two counties is the construction of the applicant. The consent of the defendant and a third defendant, who hired the defendant to four counties. Moreover, defendant. 1 is a managing partner of the Partnership defendant 3 defendants 1 to 3, is a shared interest in the construction can be considered one of the three defendants are accused of jointly hiring. 4 in the counties defendant four piles according to chart a plan for construction of the defendants 1 to 3, far fence of the plaintiff only 2 meters would realize that the pile size shall make the land side was hurt badly, which will. cause the plaintiff's property damage. Considered to be one of the three defendants are guilty in order to do work that is liable for damages of the plaintiff.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 7818/2538.
The contract states that the second defendant who is hired to construct the model and list a defendant who engaged in all respects and the defendant stipulated that an appointed Wor. Civil Engineering of the defendant as a Foreman on that. that the defendant, 4, which is operated by the defendant's 2, and machinery digging rail drainage older without using poles lean and equipment to prevent the soil break down the homosexual did not orders shall not pretend. Because the soil break down the plaintiff, both have been damaged deemed defendants 1 as the employer is wrong in the work order made by the defendant, a need to jointly liable for the damage that the defendant, two contractors. can lead to action by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 428 because. the control of the defendant, one that controls how the construction is not only responsible for the control of the work as stipulated only
Judgement of the Supreme Court 1999/2538.
The plaintiff sued the defendant for the force to earth dams in the area of land to contact the plaintiff the defendant shall not collapse without the call for action for damages resulting from the violation does not directly address the subject of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 448, paragraph. one which is only 1 year of age and in this case, no law specifically uses prescription under the general rules under Section 193/30 of 10 years old and unmarried. The general principles and then the employer made of no liability for any damage contractors can cause up to a third party during the work on employment unless the employer is a fault in the work order to do or to order they provide or to select by the Contractor as provided in Civil and Commercial Code, Section 428, when the defendant is determined to dig soil and how the defendant with the following statement of the defendant cause the land of the plaintiff's collapse breaking down the defendant must be jointly liable with The plaintiff sued for the dam of reinforced concrete earth length 180 meters, the wishes of the plaintiff wanted to land in the same condition does not collapse into the land of the defendant only where the dam is one way that the plaintiff that would block. soil erosion, but not to the Court of Appeal agreed that the dam is unnecessary to use filling tightly compacted soil to prevent erosion, land of the plaintiff to the defendant's land, the Court of Appeal has the power to do so is not over. request of the plaintiff, but the Court of Appeal sentenced the soil reclamation period is longer than 180 meters beyond the plaintiff's request can not be done.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 984/2531.
Defendant hired pm counties to condominiums by the defendant choose to hire contractors using embedded pile hammer because that cost less than the other bore is well aware that the pile will land side was severely affected. Which causes the plaintiff and the other buildings nearby damaged. But the defendant ignored. Considered that the defendant employer is wrong in order to do work that is liable for such damages to the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued the plaintiffs describe how damage. The split is a list of repairs included in the calculation.
