Damaged houses damaged

Section 434 if the damage occurs because of housing or Other buildings are damaged, defective construction or inadequate maintenance, the ruler of your house or building that needs to use the claim, but if the rule is to use reasonable care. To parry and therefore prevent the damage. The owner must use the claim.
The provisions mentioned in the preceding paragraph shall apply at all to the. Deficiency in the plant or tree or sustain bamboo
In the case mentioned in paragraph two above it. If there are other people who are responsible for causing damage itself. Or the owner will retain the right to take recourse to any such person.

Section 435 any person may suffer any damage should occur from the house or other buildings owned by others. That person likes to be called to handle the necessary treatments to parry the danger to lose.

Section 436 a person in the house are responsible for damage caused because of the drop from the house, or because of It's left to throw in the fall should not.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 212/2544.
The plaintiff sued to force a defendant to hold the damage to the plaintiff to be born. I can not take legal action for damages resulting from the violation does not directly address the subject of the age of 1 year under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 448, paragraph one
When the facts hear that the defendant, a practice violates the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1342 paragraphs one and two as a justification for sewage absorbed into the land and the house of the plaintiff and the smell can not live on the land and home. normal health in violation of provisions of law which is strictly prohibited, so is a violation of both the plaintiff that a defendant directly liable for compensation to the plaintiff, both under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 420, although it was the defendant. 1 had transferred the condominium at the scene to the defendant, 2 and whether the defendant 1 would not be referred to the Civil and Commercial Section 434 exemption fault of their own, because this case damage did not occur because of the house or building. otherwise the construction defects or inadequate maintenance.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 5783/2541.
Plaintiff's construction of concrete walls and block wall on the disputed land to the plaintiff to the defendant with their high office building 4-story concrete wall close of plaintiff's dispute settlement has caused the walls to crack the line Wall only one channel at 5 and 22 of plaster to crack, about 1 inch box channel wall is lined with a split of the 14 channels and along the walls waver * perpendicular to the original level. When the wall near the sewer after the defendant's office wall. * End of approximately 4 cm perpendicular to the inner and end * end * to the point that a lot. The first point the distance is 9 meters by 15 centimeters * end, when the dispute had damaged the wall in part of the 14 channels of dispute which the walls are all 22 channels can be considered that there is more damage than half of the wall dispute Moreover, disputes are tilted from vertical wall perpendicular to the same level as well coupled with the tilted Of the wall is not constant, but the tilt all the time. Which resulted in the wall of another dispute that has not been damaged. Have the opportunity to tilt the tension of the wall section is inclined. When you consider the damage that the plaintiff has received from a violation of the defendant. The defendant managed to demolish the wall and construction of new settlement is more appropriate than Construction of new walls to the defendant only the damaged portion. Although the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 435 which states that any person will suffer any damage should occur from the house or something. Other buildings owned by others. The person that likes to be called to handle the necessary treatments to parry danger The waste matter, but in the construction of the defendant. Defendant does not live or walls, but the defendant disputed the plaintiff's building near Wall disputed the plaintiff's only When the court took into account the damages that the plaintiff received from the construction of the wall close. Dispute and that the new wall construction to the defendant and the plaintiff can be considered. Have been treated at a danger parry, and then if it does not deserve to be. Defendant demolished buildings, causing damage that.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 5284/2540.
This case the plaintiff to the defendant, a construction contract Dam concrete. And the consideration that both parties have contractual obligations to complete the defendant is a dike can be constructed and completed as promised and delivered to the plaintiff already. And the plaintiff had paid all construction costs for a defendant to complete as well. Debt that the parties must abide by the agreement ends. Is not the case that the court should consider whether a defendant is at fault or not the agreements.

Defendant, a construction contract with the plaintiff's dike, with an agreement for the defendant, a contract provider of luggage, and labor in the construction and completion. The plaintiff and the defendant agreed to the construction of a contract between the defendant and the plaintiff is a contract made under the Commercial Code, Section 587.

The dike construction contract dispute that was the case of defective work. Deficiencies that. If the damage occurs to the work of employment within 365 days from the date of the delivery tasks and duties of the Contractor shall immediately repair the. Completed within the time specified employer. And after the expiration of such period if it is a recurring defect. Contractors also be liable to the employer as Commercial Code as well. When it appears that the construction of the dike that a defendant is building on the ground, the design of the plaintiff. By the defendants to provide a luggage yourself and Dam where the defendant has caused damage to a building separation settlement. Which causes the degeneration of the right to benefits intended to be used as a regular. Clear to the plaintiff within the year from the date of delivery as the Commercial Code, Section 595 and 600, whether the defendant, a contractor already know or do not know if there is a defect that a defendant is liable. fault that Unless the defect is the fault of the plaintiff's employer. So the problem that the defendant, a petition arguing that Before construction of the defendant. 1 have examined the properties of soil compaction at construction tight times before. Cement concrete in proportion to the concrete and the bar to check the charge Strength to the weight specified. Ties, including iron and steel mesh placed by the plaintiff did not apply. Can not be diagnosed.

The first defendant to the damage that occurs because of the dam design is not invalid in case of water than usual, the dam blocks the water damage is due to the amount of water over the dam than normal. Although the construction of a dam conforms in all respects, it also requires dam collapse It has passed over the dam flash cause higher than normal amount of water exceeds the. Strength of the dam to get water. So damaged that When it appears that the construction of a dike that the defendant must know that the objective is to deal with large amount of water that flow abnormalities. The first construction contract that the defendant is likely to be an inspection of the nature of water to obtain the exact cause act before a defendant can not be attributed to a flood, such as force majeure DISCLAIMER be.

The sixth defendant, the plaintiff is the government's design, construction defects. Select construction errors due to improper angle fracture Unfavorable interest. When the water flow forces are caused as a result of battle damage and one department was not the designer. To find information from government agencies with expertise relevant to the design barriers. Water and Irrigation dam as large as the reason that the plaintiff's dike is not strong in the later birth defects. The plaintiff has been involved with the wrong address.

The plaintiff has issued an order No. 2 committee investigated the cause and the facts and the person responsible for dam case. Damaged reinforced concrete overflow Commission has concluded the investigation report. The plaintiff offered on March 21, 2527 for civil liability. Investigation Committee that the defendant, 2 (deceased) defendant, 3 and 4 has fails to comply with their duty to cause damage to the government the defendant to six engineers supervisors not control construction all shall be liable to pay the fee. Lost the civil government of the five defendants did not appear to have ignored its duty. Should not be liable for civil liability when not appear as Supreme Commander, and representatives of the plaintiff was aware at that time. The report said since when It can be reported that investigated the causes and facts, and personnel shall be liable as individuals. Preliminary investigation report the facts only. Can not hear that the plaintiff was made aware of the abuse.

Accused 3 and 4, has been appointed as directors of the defendant to hire 5 and 6 is the Construction Management Committee. Dam construction and the defendant is a contractor who did not have to go by the form and how to create a dike causing defects as cracks and erosion damage is not in use. Less than one year from the date of delivery. The defendants 3 and 4, the report proposed that a plaintiff that the defendant has successfully completed the pattern correctly, and details should be attached to the contract. For use in public. If the defendant, 5 and 6, are not negligent care to supervise the construction of accurate control theoretic The close dike would not crack crash damage in a short time after Delivery of such According to the plaintiff and the defendant believe that the construction of four to be in the form correctly so that the wages paid to a defendant the full amount of the contract. Held that the defendant, 3 4, 5 and 6 have common duties by negligence. The plaintiff has been damaged must be jointly liable for the damages to the plaintiff.

Defendant is liable to a plaintiff in a debt under a contract of the defendant to 3 to 4, 5 and 6 shall be jointly liable to plaintiff in violation of debt even cause damage. The plaintiff the same amount. However, it is liable for any liabilities that are in the same damage only It can not force the defendants jointly liable for all damages incurred by the plaintiff.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 158/2540.
Defendant owned steel poles and netting Golf Driving Range, which is structural error and not standard theoretically the impact of the storm when the storm plain as plain can occur naturally makes. steel frame and mesh construction, which fell over the defects, which are warehouse stock of the Corporation plc. The plaintiff-insurance has been damaged defendants are liable under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 434, paragraph one The fire insurance policy stated that the insurance coverage has been expanded by the loss or damage arising from wind storms, etc. wet with water when the storm was the steel poles and netting of a warehouse collapsed over the defendant. Because the stock of the Corporation plc. The plaintiff's insurance on the wet rain, which the defendant owned buildings are responsible for when the plaintiff to pay compensation to the Corporation plc. Then the plaintiff would enter subrogation of the Corporation plc. Which is the defendant, a third party under the Civil and Commercial Section. 880, paragraph one

Judgement of the Supreme Court 75/2538.
Pine beside the road where municipal defendants a responsible condition decayed hollow, despite the rain and thunder on the scene, but it was raining slightly and moderately in the short and the speed of the wind as wind speed normal. The pine has fallen over the plaintiff's car is not due to force majeure due to weather conditions, but a defect of a defendant who refused to overthrow or shore pine to prevent damage to others that a defendant is liable. Damages to the plaintiff because of disability, life can not be controlled by the nervous system and digestive efficiency of sexual interest and can not walk to the damages that the plaintiff suffer from lifelong disability as a non-monetary damages either. two cases due to different events separated by reason of the liability separately, as each event has.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 28/2534.
Plaintiff to build shopping centers and commercial buildings for rent and sale, it is necessary to build roads within shopping centers and commercial buildings so that people living in the center and the general public as a way out. For the purpose of trade operations of the rental or purchase of commercial buildings. And the plaintiff was held when guarding the roads into the shopping center all the time. The plaintiff allowed the defendant to use the roads and sidewalks into the building next to the hotel where the defendant the plaintiff's land. Shows that the plaintiff still take possession of the area shopping centers are not intended to raise the roads and footpaths shall be public. When the defendant built building intrusion and damage to the road. The plaintiff shall have the power to sue Defendant created a high street front defendants other than the road within the center of the plaintiff. Cars and cement blocks to prevent water flowing into the street in front of Hotel defendant Act for the benefit of one party defendant without regard to the suffering of others who live in the center of the plaintiff. Road building and the defendant to the plaintiff's high street. And the plaintiff also responsible for all roads within the center of the plaintiff. Plaintiff has been damaged by the actions of the defendant. Defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 4128/2528.
Even under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 434 is subject to the rule or the owner of the tree requires compensation for damage caused by violation of any information on this subject, but in the case where the plaintiff alleged in the complaint that Plaintiff's damages caused by defects in the coconut plantation or sustain that cause damage to the plaintiff, the defendant the plaintiff has the burden to prove to the court to see that Why the falling coconut trees and causing damage to the plaintiff caused by defects in growing or sustaining the defendant's right to find that the plaintiff is under no obligation to prove that no

Judgement of the Supreme Court 1438/2526.
The plaintiff sued the defendant liable for damages arising from the house or building of the defendant. Do not provide liability for infringement of plaintiff's employees do not have to attest to the status of employee involvement. Listening in on the fact that the damage caused by drainage from the hotel roof damaged, defective or inadequate maintenance. Defendant who is also a ruler and owner of the hotel roof and drain it. Therefore liable to pay compensation to the plaintiff insurers. Damages to the insured, which has been used by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 434 in conjunction with Section 880.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 2140/2520.
Defendant and the defendant's building for rent three floors of the building, but the defendant also is home to some of the defendant company and the offices of the defendant. Defendant is considered to dominate the building of the defendant. If the plaintiff's damages occurred because of the defendant's construction of the building damaged, defective or inadequate maintenance. Defendant who is also a ruler and owner of the building needs to use the compensation to the plaintiff.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 1028/2505.
Defendants are the plaintiff tenant cultivated land of the temple housing the defendant has neglected to live in the mango tree that is based on the land lease defendant sprawling homes to cover the plaintiff. Cause the plaintiff has been damaged. The plaintiff shall have the power to sue for infringement and damages the defendant was under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 434.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 1201/2502.
The defendant is a municipal function, which will be performed ignore. That is, provided the tank is filled with ground floor before the open road the car has passed. Also appeared. The defendant did not provide what is well hamper a Dud flag for people to look passed. And at night did not provide the lamp brightness as appropriate. Defendant would have already seen that it is dangerous to cars and people traveling back and forth very well be left to live like that. Cause the plaintiff's car and drive people to the edge of this pond and damaged more The following shall be considered as negligence of the defendant to the plaintiff received. Damage the defendant liable for compensation to the plaintiff.

The Supreme Court 1358 - 1359/2496.
Building owners are trying to repair his building to be damaged However, tenants in buildings that dominate the block. Not out of the building. It will not be fixed. Building owners are building for sale to the defendant. When it comes to the defendant. Defendant was also trying to find a way to prevent the demolition dangers can arise. But the lessee defendants would interfere with former singer with the Bureau of such district. But the district is unable to get help. Besides, the lessee has to recognize also that if the District for any damage caused by tenants will be responsible for themselves. But then, tenants have not managed treatment dispel To prevent any danger in not Would leave. Building until the walls break down the building over the plaintiff's damages as the defendant, the owner of the destroyed building. Need not responsible for any damage incurred as provided in Civil and Commercial Code, Section 434.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 636/2485.
Kapok tree roots that are damaged by poor base and upright stems not waver through the plaintiff's house. The plaintiff told the defendant was aware of the damage. Management did not prevent in any way Kapok tree crushed when the plaintiff damages housing. Even as the storm or not even. The defendant is liable.

Read More

Damage occurs because the animal

Section 433 if the damage occurs because the animal You own an animal or person that the recipient party to receive treatment instead of the owner must use the compensation to parties who have damage to any damage. Caused, but the animals. Unless they can prove that he has used reasonable care to maintain the culture of the type and nature of the animal or by other circumstances, or proof that the damage that will inevitably have to come up with all that just to be careful. that
Furthermore the person responsible in the beginning of the paragraph will take recourse to persons who provoke us or the animals in violation. Or other animal to the owner took the animal to us, or provoke any time.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 2634/2542.
Accused 2 and 3, the owner Cgrongpolai Manual defendants 4 and 5, a son of the defendant, 3, and is the recipient party receiving treatment Male elephant Manual on behalf of the owner defendant, 4 and 5, the Male elephant Manual to parade in the parade orbit with Chang Chang's other, which included the plaintiff. Manual Male elephant wounded elephant plaintiff's injuries and died later the second and third defendants is not going to witness the five defendants joined the elephant in the parade because it is a different village each orbit. Shows that the defendant, 4 and 5, as the recipient party is strictly prohibited by manual treatment Male elephant defendants 2 and 3 did not benefit and are associated with Liability would fall to the defendant, 4 and 5, the recipient party for treatment in lieu of their respective owners and Commercial Code, Section 433 defendants 2 and 3 do not have joint liability.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 2628/2526.
Rs. With legs withered walking cane pole to lean, but the Dog. A professional to oversee construction vehicles driving out of the house every day to oversee the Dog Show. The ability to ride motorcycles. That are not allowed to have driver's license, motor vehicle under the car. Is not a reason to keep listening to the Rs. Negligence.
The P., who raised cattle instead of the two defendants left the cattle to graze on the highway between the provinces, which Ahentnn independence hitch or catch it towed. Procrastination is not careful animal care, as appropriate, because the animals are not public roads. Both the defendant is negligent party before, but at the bottom. The cattle walking along the street and closer to motorcyclists and honk Cause cattle to express shock and gore motorcycle. Death. Can be considered as negligence of the Dog. The one with

Judgement of the Supreme Court 2488/2523.
Accused dog in the home away from home to bite the plaintiff. Given that his wife, the defendant owned. When a case is suspected. Must assume that the dog is Sinsomrns under the Civil and Commercial Code Section 1474 is a dog owner with the defendant.
Dog escape while the defendant opened the door. Dog bites are to the plaintiff to show that the defendant did not use reasonable care in feeding the dog the defendant must pay damages to the plaintiff, including replacement of shock and suffering with

Judgement of the Supreme Court 846/2516.
The plaintiff sued the defendant for 16 people is liable for damages to the plaintiff money together. The lawsuit does not describe whether the defendant violated the plaintiff's share. And the action did not appear that any defendant who control their own buffaloes or control on behalf of any And not making clear description of any buffalo that damage to the plaintiff how much. Is ambiguous action.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 1006/2510.
Circumstances indicate that the party did not treat calves using reasonable caution.
Chang, owner of the other people take their elephants to drag the wood employed. That person is doing instead of the defendant. When the baby elephant to harm third parties by people who take their elephants to be careful not reasonable. Author elephant is liable to pay compensation to those who are harming the elephants.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 975/2510.
Buffalo, the defendant lost. Defendants note, however, does not follow immediately Buffalo to soak in water canals, public Even to negligence by the defendant. But because the damage caused by the negligence of the defendant, but not unilateral. If the plaintiff because the drive motor boat speed, so people come out to Buffalo. Buffalo injuries. The plaintiff's negligence with The plaintiff is required to claim damages for the defendant. To deduct any damage caused because of negligence of the defendant before.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 889/2510.
Elephant owners give their children the care and treatment working party exploits. The elephant owners not involved in farming or contract. When damage by elephants elephant owners not liable for infringement. Raising children is liable only treatment of elephants.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 591/2510.
Raising the fierce buffalo buffalo take a walk in a way that is not the way for Buffalo and walk closer to home with other Buffalo tied the interpreter. Which could cause it ran into fierce buffalo buffalo nation is tied to an interpreter. As was made in the absence of negligence by the nature of the personal care that fierce animals.
Buffalo looks butt plaintiff because the defendant's negligence in absence of the defendant, while aware of the employee's official duties under employment.
The defendant is the employer liable for damages to the plaintiff.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 1067/2496.
Own mother elephant, but child care is the elephant in lieu of the mother. And children also employ as Kwan Chang and maintain a culture that when violations occur. Employees leave each year by careless negligence cause the elephants to elephant damage other items of damage such as this. Children must be shared with employees liable for damages to him. But the mother elephant's owner was not involved with anything. Can not be jointly liable with

Judgement of the Supreme Court 1686/2493.
In case of damage, because animal According to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 433 describe the plaintiff sued the owner of the buffalo culture and do abuse. Buffalo gore buffalo make their damages to the plaintiff's death, this action is clear. And displays the result of very old charges under the Code of Civil Procedure Section 172, then no need to describe it. The defendant acts willfully or with negligence.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 867/2492.
Section 433 Civil and Commercial Code is the duty of the animal's owner to prove that To use reasonable care for the animals. Treatment according to the type and nature of the animal.
Elephant heat defendant's full. If you hear someone is chasing elephant rampage once accused of roaming the neighborhood at least 20 days, but the defendant is waiting for the day care in sparse It does not close. In the night not find the watch. When it appears that the elephant's death, defendant had attacked another defendant who has used an elephant and legs shot that caught the defendant had used reasonable care to maintain the culture of the type and nature of the animals can not

Read More

Many common violations

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.

Read More

Minors, persons of unsound mind and incompetent to abuse

Section 429 even incompetent person is a minor or insane reason, it is also liable for a violation of their results. Parents or. Kindergarten is such a person would be liable with him. Unless they can prove that he has used reasonable care to oversee. Which is that

Section 430 teacher employers or others who get good care forever Incompetent person good temporary need liability associated with the inability of abuse to which they have done during their stay in the care of their own. If the person can prove that. Did not use reasonable care.

Section 431 in the case mentioned in the second section before it. You, the provisions of Section 426 shall apply mutatis mutandis with.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 480/2548.
The plaintiff is the father of the plaintiff's Por Por, which also allows a minor age 16 years and no driver's license Driving a vehicle off the road to the public. The risk of an accident easily. Considered the plaintiff did not use reasonable care to oversee the minor child. The plaintiff must share liability with Por Por a violation of the defendant with
The plaintiff and the defendant is liable for the consequences of any violations, and only in accordance with the Commercial Code, Section 442 in conjunction with Section 223, consider the circumstances where that party is less corrupt than the parties how To carry out actions that violate the criteria to consider. Find out more damage was considered as a basis not less. When each partner to abuse each other and to share equally negligent plaintiff and the defendant may not claim from each other.
Co-defendant is the insurer damages arising from car insurance to the defendant. And will be liable. Only when the insured defendant is liable. When the plaintiff can not claim from the defendant. Co-defendant is not liable. Damages to the plaintiff as well.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 10239/2546.
While the accident case the defendant, 2 Divorce and the defendant at first and then with the agreement that the defendant, 3 the son of a minor in the guardianship of the defendant to a sole defendant 2 has no authority to parents to manage. care of minor children as required by law to. Of the three defendants violated for others to take the Commercial Code, Section 429 applicable in respect of the two defendants will be jointly liable with or not.

After Divorce, then accused the two can not live with the defendant, 1 and 3, even though the defendant to 2 to the household registration with the defendant, 1 and 3, and after the accident the defendant 2 has to negotiate compensation to the plaintiff or take care of the three accused from time to time. These circumstances also hear that the defendant did not care that 2 is the recipient of three defendants accused of the Commercial Code, Section 430 does not need two jointly liable for the consequences of violation of the defendant, 3.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 9774/2544.
Accused 2 and 3, which is the parent of a minor defendant who attest to the fact that the defendant only at 2 and 3, never allow the defendant to drive a motorcycle at home and school Motorcycle cars from the defendant a driver is a friend accused 1 and while the scene in time to attend schools of the defendant to one only does not prove that they have used reasonable care to oversee that do exist are under processing. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 429, because of the guardianship of their parents as well as learned to wait for care and not to control the minor child to conduct damage to persons or property of others. The son of a minor violation during the school. Article parents would not be set up to deny liability.
Defendant that a no driver license motorcycle and home of the defendant, 2 and 3, with vehicles normally defendants 1 to drive out to buy out showing that the defendant, 2 and 3, note that the defendant, one can drive a motorcycle and. Motorcycle driver ever leaving home, but the defendant, 2 and 3 did not use reasonable care to oversee the minor child. Neglected by their minor child to leave the house and vehicles driving without a driver's license, the defendant, 2 and 3, should know that driving a motorcycle by minors who have not passed the driver's license. Small risk of an accident or injury to persons or property of others is easy. The defendant to one able to drive vehicles of others in an accident has the result of neglected do not care, or forbid the defendant to a duty of the defendant, 2 and 3, but early on the defendant to one to drive motorcycle crash. The other car causing damage to plaintiff's son to death in violation of plaintiff's second and third defendants are liable for the consequences of violations associated with it.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 2118/2540.
Son of the plaintiff to the defendant's car with the plaintiff brought friends to see entertainment by co-defendant to f. A drive to the entertainment. Then stop by to see when the time 3 o'clock on the defendant to exchange a driver from the scene and nightlife. The defendant to an out of the house to visit, and the defendant together to allow the defendant to a drive of the plaintiff took the defendant with some friends to cruise the entertainment no circumstances which indicate that the defendant, one would have to act. Driving f the plaintiff's behalf. volunteered for the defendant to a plaintiff when driving return of the defendant must be considered beyond the 2 and 3, which is not given to parents. Considered the second and third defendants to use reasonable care to oversee the making in that time then. It was between the defendant, 2 and 3 can be used to to do or know are willing to do so the defendant, 2 and 3 can not be jointly liable for the consequences of violation of the defendant to one under the Civil and Commercial Section. 429, but after the accident the defendant 2 as the father ผoogแdnodicobhrnrnam the defendant an agreed before official permission indemnity in violation of the defendant, an agreement has committed the defendant to two of the defendant, three did not agree to compensate, but very. any Does not bind the defendant to 3.
Co-defendants already know that a defendant is a minor symptoms and no driver's license, car drunk alcohol The defendant with the plaintiff's car, a mother to give the defendant a driver to travel like this. Noting that under the circumstances to be Accident implicitly It can be accused, together with contributing to the accident in violation of this case. Co-defendants are also jointly liable with the defendant that the consequences of a violation that

Judgement of the Supreme Court 9184/2539.
The second defendant was the father without the defendant's unlawful. 1, which is a minor. The defendant to one to act in violation of other people will take the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 429 shall apply in respect of the defendant, two will be jointly liable with or not, but accused the two as parents care defendants. at One must take the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 430 shall apply in respect of the defendant to two of the defendants 2, 3, the key defendant JEEP car to keep in the desk drawer in the shop's collection of the defendant. 3, which is not locked while the third defendant's sales and cause the defendant secretly took out a key to driving people JEEP negligence that the plaintiff passenger car warranty. Threats to damage. Holding that the defendant, 2 and accused the three, the parents do not use caution in taking care of the defendant, a son of a minor as appropriate to oversee which is the defendant, 2 and 3, it is liable with the defendant: 1. In a violation of the plaintiff.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 5752/2534.
1 of 4 defendants to hang out with the sling shot ammunition in the public walkway at night until the accident case. The defendant appeared 1 to 4, usually at night out together often, such actions of the defendants 1 to 4 shows that parents do not care to teach the appropriate functions. Between the two defendants, even at 3 to 4 at home to help relatives raising buffalo, or to help farm But to make a minor violation, while not live with their parents. Would not any parents to raise up to deny liability to the defendant, 5, and the defendant to 7 to 10, attest only that the instruction to the defendant at 1 to 4, to be a good person does not prove that they have used reasonable care to which is responsible for it. Must be jointly liable with the defendants 1 to 4, under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 429.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 2056/2526.
Son of the plaintiff and the defendant is a child that brought together friends drove out to visit friends with children who drive the plaintiff. After a friend brought back plaintiff's son was driving away with the child defendant. The defendant did not know and do not indicate the circumstances which show that the defendant will serve children instead of children ran after the plaintiff's son accused of negligent driving by the plaintiff to the accident damage. Such circumstances can be considered that the defendant used the defendant reasonable care to child care duties at that time and defendants do not jointly liable with the minor child.
Although defendant may not be jointly liable with the minor child in violation of the minor child to act because the defendant has used reasonable care to oversee the making in the matter, but it appears that after the incident the defendant has agreed to pay. damage caused by child abuse made against the accused officers. Show that the defendant confess to compensate for violations of child defendants agreement is binding the defendant.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 528/2523.
Although the second defendant, the defendant, his father would never forbid. A minor child who is not to take a car to use. And keep your own car with a key stored on a high, but whether the defendant knew the store and had a taxi out to the driver. Would indicate that the two defendants not given consent to the defendant for a driver to use caution in this regard as reasonable to assume the defendant is not responsible for the two attest disprove liability. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 429 is not the second defendant is liable, with the first defendant.
The defendant, a driving car crash plaintiff at 1 because it will get to buy meat by the defendant to 3 to use to buy and to buy meat to make beef satay sold to joint venture of the defendant, 3 any of the defendants. Driving a car crash that the plaintiff was held not to violate a defendant to represent the defendant because the third parties do not replace a third of the three defendants are not jointly liable with

Judgement of the Supreme Court 612/2488.
Parents who can attest that they have used reasonable care to the previous page. Shall not be liable with the minor child to be violated.
Minor child to the abducted John detention and rape women. When parents use reasonable care and shall not be liable to duty with the child.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 1206/2535.
The second defendant is the only owner of the residence where the defendant is a minor rent. And users to the defendant, a motorist car accident to Kit engaged their only phone is not accused of second-party recipient care of the defendant, an on and will be jointly liable for the defendant to one in the violation of the Criminal Law. and Commercial Section 430 because the owners are responsible for a dormitory residence operation and control of stay in the hostel only

Read More

Of a violation of Contractors work

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.

Read More

Employees in violation of the employment

Section 425 Employee shall be jointly liable with the employee in violation of the employees have done in the informal employment.

Section 426 employers who have used the compensation to an employee violates a third party to do it. Prefer to pay by the employee.

Section 427 provisions of section two before that. Your souls shall apply, mutatis mutandis, and agents.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 7552/2550.
The legal age limit to begin from the time that may force claims to be the case, the plaintiff sued so that Thor, the employee violated the plaintiff's employment in the formal cause of the property. Others were damaged. And the plaintiff has to pay compensation under the Supreme Court Wor. And the Bank since March 31, 2540 date is the event that the Employee shall be jointly liable with the employee in violation of the employee. Done in informal employment is the Commercial Code, Section 425, the provisions of the duties and obligations of employers and employees to join. Liable for damages from third parties has been violated as the employee, but in between the employer and employee. Rights and duties of employers and employees towards each other is just what must adhere to the Commercial Code, Section 426 states that Employers who use the compensation to an employee violates a third party to do the like to compensate the employees, so that when the Supreme Court ruled. Plaintiff became aware of the compensation to be paid to companies that. And the Bank and pay compensation to on March 31, 2540, which time after death, when Thor Thor death debt arising from a data breach at Thor. before falling to death is the legacy of the three defendants Dryadodihrnrnam. The plaintiff is entitled to compensation from the defendant and three nights just happen. When the plaintiff claims payment date is March 31, 2540 and claims to employees restitution under Section 426 Commercial Code law without prescription otherwise. So the ten-year old Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/30, even death, and Thor, but data breach debt incurred before death, that Thor made a legacy to fall three defendants who are brought Dryadodihrnrnam age, according Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1754, paragraph four, the age of the claims of creditors Ehgamrndu used for this case is not the case, so when the plaintiff sued the three defendants on September 29, 2547 but before the end of ten. years after the plaintiff has the right to call out to Thor does not terminate the plaintiff sued.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 386/2550.
2 The plaintiff sued the defendant as the defendant violated an employer as a defendant in two of the employer violated the employment. And the three defendants jointly liable as a recipient Prauanpaicgmhun indemnity liability of the defendant and the defendant a 2, 3, is different. For the defendants 1 and 2, the age of 1 year from the date the victim knew of the infringement and should be aware of the compensation required under the Commercial Code, Section 448, paragraph one of the defendant, 3 years from the age of 2 days. casualty under Section 882, paragraph one at the age of the lawsuit accused the first of two defendants to three can be separated from each other under section 295 given age as you or a penalty only to the debtor who is accused of three can not be lifted. age, under Section 448, paragraph one of the battle.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 2841/2548.
Record daily reports about the case, labeled "on December 23, 2539 were passenger car drivers, and Por that.'s Drivers pick up. Meet to negotiate compensation. The agreement has called for the Por Wor. Repairing vehicles damaged in the original condition that. Let agreed to the proposal in all respects, "the document says no to the second plaintiff's damages are. malicious injury to the body and did not identify any other damages. Both the plaintiff should receive compensation from the defendant violated a message also appeared to agree that the parties agreed to settle the disputes that exist or will be willing to take up the claims were different. Or messages that the plaintiff did not intend to sue the two defendants, both civil and criminal the next. Record daily reports about the lawsuit is not a compromise agreement. Debt breach between the two plaintiffs and defendants have not yet hold a second defendant as a defendant employer is liable to the plaintiff both

Judgement of the Supreme Court 4431/2547.
Defendant, the plaintiff was an employee of a drive in the employment of people with negligence since her death. Heirs of the deceased sole plaintiff sued as the employer claims. Justice of the Supreme Court, the plaintiff claims with interest and fees to the plaintiff the value fees the Commercial Code, Section 426, which represents employers that have used the compensation to third parties for violation of the employee. Do it like to get compensation from the employee, the employer and therefore the plaintiff can use the compensation to a third party is like to be. Receive compensation from the employee only claims to be using to third parties insofar as it is for Court fees that the plaintiff pay to the heirs of the deceased is a liability judgments arising from litigation between the plaintiff and the heirs of the deceased and the plaintiff is the underdog Court fees compensation case is not directly resulting from the defendant violated the plaintiff has no right of recourse to the defendant to pay the Court fees.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 3373/2545.
The plaintiff, the employer. B., who died will trigger compensation to B. B. causing the third party during the performance of the employable The plaintiff must pay compensation to a third party to it. It will be entitled to take legal action to claim compensation for the plaintiff, and then return to the outsider. The employee under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 426, when the plaintiff has not paid the debt to third parties. The plaintiff then sued the defendant does not have the power to the heir of B. Such liability to the plaintiff.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 3091/2535.
Civil and Commercial Code, Section 426 states that the employer was pay the employee only claims that an employer can pay to a third party to violate the employee has made only Court fees in cases before the injured party to sue employers and employees to jointly liable for violations. court party liability for each other that the discretion under the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 161 of compensation for violation of the court may order the liable parties as provided in Civil and Commercial Code, Section 428 to 447, which does not mention Court fees at the parties must pay in the infringement case. Therefore, the court considered Court fees employers and employees as compensation to injured parties in cases before a claim for infringement does not. Employers are asking employees to sue to recoup court Court fees employers and employees to jointly pay a total amount not injured. Judgement in the case, but such a result, employers and employees as joint debtors of the victims. Liability in the joint debtors shall be in accordance with Section 296, which decreed that should each be liable to equal parts in this case, the employer is entitled to workers compensation Court fees the payment exceed the liability return of workers as section

Judgement of the Supreme Court 4309/2545.
The plaintiff sued the defendant, 2, jointly liable for the defendant to 1 as the employer of the defendant at one without the lawsuit to the defendant to 2 liability in virtue of a breach of the c. Where an employee, another defendant, two are when the defendant, one does not. be liable to the plaintiff because the defendant is not a person who commits a violation perished There is no debt to the second defendant as a joint employer of the defendant liable for plaintiff anymore. The District Court sentenced the defendant to a dismissal, but defendant sentenced to 2 liability to the plaintiff by claiming liable for violations of the c. And violated the employees in the employ of the defendant is a judge out of action 2.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 1351/2543.
Truck, ten-wheel vehicle accident with a defendant, third ownership and carriers, even defendants 3 to provide the defendant to two leasing truck ten wheels that but accused the three, it is the taxpayers to use. Knock-transport type of person all the time every year and allow the defendant to two the truck ten wheels to transport operator on behalf of the defendant to three circumstances that can be considered that the defendant, 2 and 3 are mutually beneficial in The transport operator. The defendant first employed as driving trucks ten wheel of a defendant to 3 on the defendant to an action infringed on informal employment and the transport operator which business defendants 2 and 3 are mutually beneficial accused the 3 so. be jointly liable with the defendant, 1 and 2, with

Judgement of the Supreme Court 2569/2540.
The plaintiff and defendant, a signature in a daily report about the case that the defendant at an acceptable error in the negligence and willing to compensate the plaintiff 6,000 baht from the damages of about 10,550 baht if the defendant that a failure to make payment scheduled for the plaintiff. civil litigation is that Agreed to pay damages as well as the exact number then. Held that the plaintiff and defendant, a settlement agreement with respect to damages caused by violation of data driving collided with a different finish to give grace to each other. A compromise agreement under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 850 has resulted in liability claims arising from the data breach and to hold the end of the plaintiff and the defendant has a right as shown in the compromise agreement. When the debt arising from a data breach, and then extinguished the liability of a defendant accused of a violation, and 2 and 3, which must be jointly liable with the defendant as an employer would also hold. Plaintiffs do not have the power to take legal action against the defendant in violation of the three data. Despite this problem, and the third defendant, a petition, but is not a problem with the debt may not be distinguishable. Justice of the Supreme Court has the power to affect the defendants 1 and 3, according to the Code of Civil Procedure Section 245 (a) of Section 247.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 117/2540.
Lorry driver accused of 3-end collisions cause the motor tricycle tricycle car to bounce off people's car d company. Then drive it to collide with the end of passenger cars are even logically, because tire Mae pump brake break is not act of God, because if the defendant, 3, who drive trucks to monitor and maintain truck regular nature of a professional driving. it would prevent a tire pump, brake mother was suddenly broken by the three defendants, so acting negligently causing the car d company. Have been damaged. Defendant 3 to employees driving the defendants 1 and 2, the drive truck of the accused 1 and 2, the employers in the informal employment after that, even if the defendant 3: Corruption Drive to personal business and then to act. violation of any others, would be the tasks in between the employer and the employees do not like outsiders, but in the case considered in informal employment violated the defendants 1 and 2 will be jointly liable with the defendant, 3. with

Judgement of the Supreme Court 6935/2539.
Accused 2 and 3, Thor mill operation together when a defendant, a truck driver employee of the defendant to three trucks of rice mill Thor's instructions to send the three defendants with negligent collision. the plaintiff's motorcycle causing serious injury to the plaintiff as is done in violation of the employment of the defendant, the defendant, 2 and 3, 2 and 3, as employers are jointly liable to the plaintiff by

Judgement of the Supreme Court 5398/2538.
Defendants 2 to 4 charge stand out vehicle registration card to the card. Card and check out while the car from the parking lot at the entrance barrier stall parking lot Responsible for the security of the defendant to 2 to 4 is about preventing those who do not own cars to the car from the parking lot directly or recovery of stolen vehicles. The parking lots and the rear parking pass with the message that the service parking lot will have to keep cards in order to make time to bring a car from a parking lot, otherwise the company will not let the car go out unless to find other evidence to show confirmation. When the car park entrance is the only way is if the defendants 2 to 4, which is strictly stable block card check, it will be difficult for the plaintiff's car to be stolen. The defendant to 2 to 4 are not careful examination parking pass strict. Which a waiver of duties to prevent car theft is a direct result of the car stolen to the plaintiff. And a negligent act is in violation of the plaintiff by the defendant and Commercial Code, Section 420 2 to 4 shall be liable for the plaintiff.

Read More