Stranded Danish Family Free To Leave Thailand

[george]

Stranded Danish Family Free to Leave Thailand

CHA-AM: -- The Danish parents, whose 15 year-old son has been held in Thailand following his involvement in a deadly jetski accident, have been allowed to return to Denmark – with their son. The family had to pay 300,000 DKK in compensation.

Since January 3 this year, the Hesseldahl family has been held in Thailand in what has become a vacation nightmare for the Danish family of three.

Their misfortunes began when the 15 year-old Kristian Hesseldahl was involved in a jetski collision outside the popular tourist beach in Cha Am – an accident which cost a 23 year-old Chinese man his life. The Danish family was held pending the investigation, and the Chinese family initially demanded 500,000 DKK in compensation for the death of their only son.

This week, a Thai court of law issued a verdict which demanded that the Danish family had to pay 300,000 DKK in compensation to the Chinese family. The amount was paid soon after, which means that the Danish family is now free to leave Thailand, according to the Danish TV-station TV2 News.

In Denmark, the case has won the attention of the media mainly because the Danish family’s insurance company, Lærerstandens Brandforsikring, has refused to help the family pay the compensation.

--ScandAsia 2007-01-26

[britmaveric]

26000 quid? Lot of dosh to come up with - turned out to be a rather costly holiday in more ways then one.

[Phil Conners]

Thailand again won the small victory, but that family and a lot of other families from Denmark are not going to go to Thailand on their next holiday. I wonder how much Thailand lost, in order to win 300,000 baht.

[sriracha john]

Amounts, as of Jan 26, referenced in the article (rounded off to nearest baht) :

300,000 Danish Krone = 1,740,682 Thai Baht

500,000 Danish Krone = 2,901,589 Thai Baht

[younghusband]

Thailand again won the small victory, but that family and a lot of other families from Denmark are not going to go to Thailand on their next holiday. I wonder how much Thailand lost, in order to win 300,000 baht.

What a weird way to look at the incident. These jetski idiots are absolute pests and in this case one of them cost a young man his life.I can't see how the Thai authorities can be criticised (as opposed to the Danish insurance company).

[kayo]

they can be criticised very easily.

Not for claiming some retirbution, but what kind of a settlement is that?

For a few thousand euro's you've settled the death of your husband/son/brother; Money that will go in no time, there has been no justice, no time served, relatively little impact on the kid or the parents, and life goes on its merry way.

It's a disgrace that the danes got away with paying so little, and its a disgrace that the thai's didn't pursue this more vigorously.

IMHO, they've all lost face.

[ColPyat]

Thailand again won the small victory, but that family and a lot of other families from Denmark are not going to go to Thailand on their next holiday. I wonder how much Thailand lost, in order to win 300,000 baht.

How has Thailand "won" 300 000 Baht?

Compensation was demanded and paid to the Chinese family. There is very little Thai courts can do when a case is filed officially. I am not so amiliar with such procedures in other countries, but i doubt that when official cases such as this is filed that it will be handled any differently.

[Jimjim]

Exactly. Thailand did not get the 300,000 DKK, the Chinese family did. Check the details before writing a misleading statement.

So, Danish people don't think there should be consequences for manslaughter? I hardly think so. Denmark citizens seem to be more responsible than others, so I don't think it will affect Danish tourism to Thailand. A boy that kills another, accidentally or not, would be held accountable in any lawful country. It may affect their (Danish tourists) decision to give or not to give a teenage boy the power of a dangerous jetski/waverider, however.

Edited January 26, 2007 by Jimjim

[jezchesters]

Kind of...

Depends on what the coroner's (or equivalent) verdict was - a verdict of accidental death would involve no culpability on the Danish kiddy's part. Even if recklessness was a consideration leading to a manslaughter judgement, the kiddy is still a minor...

But then again, you live by the rules of the country you holiday in - them's the breaks...

[JRinger]

But then again, you live by the rules of the country you holiday in - them's the breaks...

If the shoe (jetski) was on the other foot, what would have been the award to the Danish family?

Over the years I've seen and heard many 'accidental' deaths, gun related, road accidents, etc., to foreigner's and many without compensation.

Edited January 26, 2007 by JRinger

[hastings]

Kind of...

Depends on what the coroner's (or equivalent) verdict was - a verdict of accidental death would involve no culpability on the Danish kiddy's part. Even if recklessness was a consideration leading to a manslaughter judgement, the kiddy is still a minor...

But then again, you live by the rules of the country you holiday in - them's the breaks...

Denotes a fundamental misunderstanding of law. A ruling of accidental death simply means no criminal culpability. People are held culpable for accidents every day in most every country. The amount 1.7 million baht is a substantial award in Thailand, and therefore reasonable under the circumstances.

[jezchesters]

Kind of...

Depends on what the coroner's (or equivalent) verdict was - a verdict of accidental death would involve no culpability on the Danish kiddy's part. Even if recklessness was a consideration leading to a manslaughter judgement, the kiddy is still a minor...

But then again, you live by the rules of the country you holiday in - them's the breaks...

Denotes a fundamental misunderstanding of law. A ruling of accidental death simply means no criminal culpability. People are held culpable for accidents every day in most every country. The amount 1.7 million baht is a substantial award in Thailand, and therefore reasonable under the circumstances.

Sorry Hastings - incorrect...

A ruling of accidental death implies no culpability - criminal nor civil

Please cite a case where a party has been held responsible for an accident - the two terms are mutually exclusive

[jezchesters]

Kind of...

Depends on what the coroner's (or equivalent) verdict was - a verdict of accidental death would involve no culpability on the Danish kiddy's part. Even if recklessness was a consideration leading to a manslaughter judgement, the kiddy is still a minor...

But then again, you live by the rules of the country you holiday in - them's the breaks...

Denotes a fundamental misunderstanding of law. A ruling of accidental death simply means no criminal culpability. People are held culpable for accidents every day in most every country. The amount 1.7 million baht is a substantial award in Thailand, and therefore reasonable under the circumstances.

Aha! Methinks I smell a yank! Wrong use of the word 'denotes'; gets 'most' confused with 'nearly'; and holds an unshakeable belief that the US legal system is correct in comparison to the rest of the world, rather than vice-versa Don't you people sue companies for not putting 'Warning: Hot Coffee' signs on cups of coffee and 'Warning: May Contain Nuts' on packets of nuts?

[TAWP]

Drunk driver that killed 2 girls got away with 10K baht per person...but then again, he wasn't a rich farang...

And Kayo, an accident is still an accident. It might have been the fault of the chinese lad that also was on a jetskii. So why did the family get to pay 300K DK? Souns like extorsion-trial.

[taxexile]

compensation for deaths and injuries is common here and in other asian countries.

the insurance might have considered jet skiing a "dangerous sport" and probably had an exclusion clause.

in an advanced society , the local authorities would look at this accident have some kind of enquiry and impose some restrictions on jet ski operators , an age limit on users , ( this kid was 15 and probably had never used one before) and mark out special areas for jet skiing or for jet ski free swimming , thereby making things safer for the tourists.

have such measures been implemented in cha am ?

[Jet Gorgon]

compensation for deaths and injuries is common here and in other asian countries.

Too true, that's why many perps leave the scene or run over the victims a few times to ensure there are no witnesses.

[Mai Krap]

This story has been a damm outrage from the start! Just for starters there has been no evidence submited that it was even the Danish kids fault, It might very well of been equal fault by both parties involved. Granted the loss of life is horrible but I see it about every day in Thailand. I will not be forgeting the poor old Danish lady I met whos husband was ran over by a Policeman driving a truck to fast who was never even tested for drink driving. This guy was trying to go out for dinner and knocked into a coma for a week then air evacuated out, who knows if he died or what after he was gone but I can tell you this, she was presented the bill and paid before her exit.

Yea its a damm outrage because people die here everyday and nothing happens, and for damm sure no money changes hands. Im aware of many deaths here Thai on Thai and I have never heard of one situation where anyone with money was forced to pay more than 40,000 TB over any death. What are the standards concerning these matters? Who is deciding how much a life is worth? Who has to play by rules and who gets to make them up as they go?

Another big question raised is safty? While this situation took place on water almost all farang related accidents take place on the roads, mostly rental motorcycles. Was the Danish kid given any kind of safty instruction in order to rent the jet ski? If he was given instructions did he clearly break the rules he was given which caused the accident? If thats the case and I highly doubt it why was it not mentioned anywhere?

The biggest problem of all for Thailand is the impression that this boy was held hostage untill a ransom was paid. This will be played out over and over by the Nordic Media and is not the kind of thing thats reversable. I dont see it stopping Danish backpackers from coming but some of the VIP types with kids who actually watch the news and check places out before they go to them on holiday may very well decide not to come because of this single incident.

In the end I believe this was done to kiss the black hole that is the Chinese Media since the last thing anyone wants to do is reduce the inflow of the package tourist from China which represents real money. At the end of this story the Danes are a small fish in Thailands tourist industry and they were publicly humiliated for being the smaller fish. The situation has brought to the surface a few things that will without doubt be swept under the rug again as soon as possible.

[oxymoron]

Do you not think there is a more fundamental issue here!!!!

The family were held culpable for their sons accident and were restrained from leaving Thailand. Does this mean the JETSKI operator hirer did not have suitable "public liability insurance" by a Thai Company. Why were their Danish insurance involved?

As a tourist or for that matter one of us long term stayers, what is your position when you hire something? Being as full as a boot or 'high' excepted.

In a normal environment the "Insurance Lawyers" would have handled the issue and unless the youth was formally charged with a serious criminal offense. From what I have read the issue has been one of adequate compensation more than say law/justice.

[taxexile]

from scandasia

15 Year Old Danish Boy – Factfinding

The story brought up by the Danish Daily B.T. involving the 15 year old Kristian Hesseldahl and his parents, Susanne and Hugo Hesseldahl has led to a campaign in Denmark to seek the speedy return of the family.

By Morten Perregaard

The family is held in Thailand after a tragic accident on a jetski where a Chinese male lost his life on January 3.

The family is now faced with compensation charges of 500.000 DKK. The Thai authorities have withheld the boy’s passport and now the family is stuck in Thailand.

After Danish media started reporting about the case, it has created uproar among Danes who now have opened a homepage and a bankaccount in order to help the family out of Thailand.

Much of the uproar is linked to the Thai authorities, the Thai legal system and the Danish Embassy.

Scandasia seeks to provide our readers with factfinding and try to avoid misunderstandings and myths.

The Compensation

For the moment being, it is not decided whether the Danish boy and the family are going to pay 500.000 DKK. That is for the court to decide.

It is a demand from the Chinese Part – not from the Thai authorities. According to Thai law that is possible, regardless whether the accident has happened non-intentionally.

If the opposite took place, the Danish family was entitled to do the same.

There was no insurance on the jetski, so damage made by the user is to be paid personally – if Kristian Hesseldahl is found guilty in causing the accident.

On behalf of the autopsy a possible compensation will be determined. The autopsy can last as long as six weeks, but it will usually take two weeks.

The Accident

Not yet confirmed information about the accident reveals that the Dane was riding his jetski along the shore – as well as the Chinese couple was riding along the shore. The Chinese couple then went further offshore with the Danish boy following.

People familiar to jetski will know that you can play with them and spray water around. You can navigate them similar to a bumper car, but not drive into each other. Still, regarding the unconfirmed information that was what happened when the Danish boy went to fast and lost control hitting the Chinese couple’s jetski. Whether the Chinese man was hit by the jetski or drowned is for the autopsy to decide.

The Danish Embassy

In general, a foreign embassy does not have any authority demanding the Thai legal system to be set out of control because an alien and not a Thai citizen are involved in an accident.

Danish jurisdiction is limited to - Denmark.

What the Danish Embassy can do in this case is to provide the family with a lawyer and give them advice. The Danish Embassy cannot lent or give the family any money. Not because they do not want to, but because they do not have any legal authority to do so. It is a question of political priority and not a consular task.

The Family

According to ScandAsia´s information the family is doing a hard time.

Kristian Hesseldahl is not doing well. He is dealing with a sense of guilt. He has difficulties falling in a sleep. His parents are giving their best under the difficult circumstances.

Created 2007-01-15

Reader Comments:

Michael :

Thank you for presenting a less biased report than the Danish media. B.T.'s story is incredibly one-sided. Yes, it may be tough for the 15-year-old Dane and his family, but a person lost his life as a result of this incident. Isn't that a bit more tragic?

And shouldn't a 15-year-old's parents have bought an insurance for their son - if they should allow him to ride the jetski at all?

Posted Date: 2007-01-15 09:50:42

peter petersen :

a sad storry indeed, but as a foreigner you must realise, that in Thailand you are under thailaws and it's normal routine and an unfortunately fact, that farang always are guilty in ALL accidents , traficcaccidents, jetski's, fighting a.s.o.. Tourist are not aware of this lack of (western) justice, so I will suggest, that farang never, never rent any vehicles, bikes, boats ot anything else, which can make damage to third person. Another thing is, that you have no insurancecover for the fees or the compensation you must pay, so stay away fro renting !

Posted Date: 2007-01-16 02:31:18

Bent Jensen :

Now, I don't think the embassy "provides the family with a lawyer"". I think the embassy just calls the usual overpriced lawyer, and the family has to pay his fee.

I bet the Thai police report on the accident hasn't been translated yet into English (not to mention Danish) for the family to understand.

Posted Date: 2007-01-17 16:04:53

[sanook1]

compensation for deaths and injuries is common here and in other asian countries.

the insurance might have considered jet skiing a "dangerous sport" and probably had an exclusion clause.

in an advanced society , the local authorities would look at this accident have some kind of enquiry and impose some restrictions on jet ski operators , an age limit on users , ( this kid was 15 and probably had never used one before) and mark out special areas for jet skiing or for jet ski free swimming , thereby making things safer for the tourists.

have such measures been implemented in cha am ?

why is all this about money, it was an accident its about a young boy being killed by a jetski. Its a sad story but nobody is to blame. No money should be paid. Jet ski companies should have more control about where they allow customers to go...its the fault of beach zoning

[hastings]

Kind of...

Depends on what the coroner's (or equivalent) verdict was - a verdict of accidental death would involve no culpability on the Danish kiddy's part. Even if recklessness was a consideration leading to a manslaughter judgment, the kiddy is still a minor...

But then again, you live by the rules of the country you holiday in - them's the breaks...

Denotes a fundamental misunderstanding of law. A ruling of accidental death simply means no criminal culpability. People are held culpable for accidents every day in most every country. The amount 1.7 million baht is a substantial award in Thailand, and therefore reasonable under the circumstances.

Aha! Methinks I smell a yank! Wrong use of the word 'denotes'; gets 'most' confused with 'nearly'; and holds an unshakeable belief that the US legal system is correct in comparison to the rest of the world, rather than vice-versa Don't you people sue companies for not putting 'Warning: Hot Coffee' signs on cups of coffee and 'Warning: May Contain Nuts' on packets of nuts?

You are mistaken. Accidents are the subject of damage awards in most nations. Are you foolish enough to argue that because someone injured somebody else by accident (here the negligent conduct of operating a jet ski where people are also swimming), there can be no responsibility because it was accidental. Accident and fault (culpability) are not mutually exclusive. For example, when a doctor injures a patient during the course of a procedure it would be accidental (unless you would also argue that a doctor would injure his patient intentionally). Notwithstanding the doctor will generally be held liable for the injuries caused by his negligent conduct. If the patient dies as a result of the doctors error, a coroner's inquest may, as you argue, find that the death was accidental (the result of negligence). The doctor would still face damages for the injury caused. Similarly, auto v. pedestrian accidents happen all the time with the driver of he vehicle being found culpable for the pedestrian's injuries. If you want to argue the point, your original statement should have referenced a finding that the swimmer (as opposed to the jet ski driver) had been found at fault by a coroner's verdict. At least, you would have an argument for lack of culpability on the part of the driver under that circumstance (it would be similar to a child running into traffic in a manner in which the driver could not avoid the accident and thus was not responsible for its aftermath).

As for the term "denotes" the usage was correct. Denote(s) means "to signify directly or literally" and describes the relation between the word and the thing it conventionally names. Here it applies to your claim that the "coroner's verdict" would result in "no culpability."

BTW my rebuke of your comments has nothing to do with the US legal system. The result is the same in most first world countries (and many second and third world countries, as well). Indeed, very few countries offer an "it was accidental" escape liability card.

[Jet Gorgon]

The biggest problem of all for Thailand is the impression that this boy was held hostage untill a ransom was paid. This will be played out over and over by the Nordic Media and is not the kind of thing thats reversable. I dont see it stopping Danish backpackers from coming but some of the VIP types with kids who actually watch the news and check places out before they go to them on holiday may very well decide not to come because of this single incident.

There goes the strategy to attract high-quality tourists.

[kmart]

compensation for deaths and injuries is common here and in other asian countries.

Too true, that's why many perps leave the scene or run over the victims a few times to ensure there are no witnesses.

Yes, this really encourages truly humanitarian behaviour beneficial to a healthy society, doesn't it?

It was a jetski - jetski accident, the Chinese fella might have been at fault too. Who knows???

What is always certain is that in any tragedy here, someone is getting their palm greased.

And the jetski / bus / ferry operator will carry on as if nothing ever happened....

[lingyai]

This story has been a damm outrage from the start! Just for starters there has been no evidence submited that it was even the Danish kids fault, It might very well of been equal fault by both parties involved. Granted the loss of life is horrible but I see it about every day in Thailand. I will not be forgeting the poor old Danish lady I met whos husband was ran over by a Policeman driving a truck to fast who was never even tested for drink driving. This guy was trying to go out for dinner and knocked into a coma for a week then air evacuated out, who knows if he died or what after he was gone but I can tell you this, she was presented the bill and paid before her exit.

Yea its a damm outrage because people die here everyday and nothing happens, and for damm sure no money changes hands. Im aware of many deaths here Thai on Thai and I have never heard of one situation where anyone with money was forced to pay more than 40,000 TB over any death. What are the standards concerning these matters? Who is deciding how much a life is worth? Who has to play by rules and who gets to make them up as they go?

The biggest problem of all for Thailand is the impression that this boy was held hostage untill a ransom was paid. This will be played out over and over by the Nordic Media and is not the kind of thing thats reversable. I dont see it stopping Danish backpackers from coming but some of the VIP types with kids who actually watch the news and check places out before they go to them on holiday may very well decide not to come because of this single incident.

If this keeps Danes or any other nationality from letting their 15 yearolds on Jetskis then great!!

You seem to be mad that some Thais don't get treated the same as this Danish family, yes if true that is too bad but that doesn't mean this family should not have to pay some compensation.

compensation for deaths and injuries is common here and in other asian countries.

the insurance might have considered jet skiing a "dangerous sport" and probably had an exclusion clause.

in an advanced society , the local authorities would look at this accident have some kind of enquiry and impose some restrictions on jet ski operators , an age limit on users , ( this kid was 15 and probably had never used one before) and mark out special areas for jet skiing or for jet ski free swimming , thereby making things safer for the tourists.

have such measures been implemented in cha am ?

why is all this about money, it was an accident its about a young boy being killed by a jetski. Its a sad story but nobody is to blame. No money should be paid. Jet ski companies should have more control about where they allow customers to go...its the fault of beach zoning

Why is this about money? Because the Chinese family has lost money. The chinese man who was killed no doubt was an income earner and had many years left to earn money to provide for his family, now that is gone. They are greatly affected the Danish family is not. So it is quite reasonable IF their 15 year old son was the cause they have to pay. 1.7 million baht is quite reasonable. The kid is 3 years from being a legal man, so he is not a young boy. Is the jet ski company at fault also? Yes, but the parents clearly let their kid ride the jet ski.

[gharknes]

Kind of...

Depends on what the coroner's (or equivalent) verdict was - a verdict of accidental death would involve no culpability on the Danish kiddy's part. Even if recklessness was a consideration leading to a manslaughter judgment, the kiddy is still a minor...

But then again, you live by the rules of the country you holiday in - them's the breaks...

Denotes a fundamental misunderstanding of law. A ruling of accidental death simply means no criminal culpability. People are held culpable for accidents every day in most every country. The amount 1.7 million baht is a substantial award in Thailand, and therefore reasonable under the circumstances.

Aha! Methinks I smell a yank! Wrong use of the word 'denotes'; gets 'most' confused with 'nearly'; and holds an unshakeable belief that the US legal system is correct in comparison to the rest of the world, rather than vice-versa Don't you people sue companies for not putting 'Warning: Hot Coffee' signs on cups of coffee and 'Warning: May Contain Nuts' on packets of nuts?

You are mistaken. Accidents are the subject of damage awards in most nations. Are you foolish enough to argue that because someone injured somebody else by accident (here the negligent conduct of operating a jet ski where people are also swimming), there can be no responsibility because it was accidental. Accident and fault (culpability) are not mutually exclusive. For example, when a doctor injures a patient during the course of a procedure it would be accidental (unless you would also argue that a doctor would injure his patient intentionally). Notwithstanding the doctor will generally be held liable for the injuries caused by his negligent conduct. If the patient dies as a result of the doctors error, a coroner's inquest may, as you argue, find that the death was accidental (the result of negligence). The doctor would still face damages for the injury caused. Similarly, auto v. pedestrian accidents happen all the time with the driver of he vehicle being found culpable for the pedestrian's injuries. If you want to argue the point, your original statement should have referenced a finding that the swimmer (as opposed to the jet ski driver) had been found at fault by a coroner's verdict. At least, you would have an argument for lack of culpability on the part of the driver under that circumstance (it would be similar to a child running into traffic in a manner in which the driver could not avoid the accident and thus was not responsible for its aftermath).

As for the term "denotes" the usage was correct. Denote(s) means "to signify directly or literally" and describes the relation between the word and the thing it conventionally names. Here it applies to your claim that the "coroner's verdict" would result in "no culpability."

BTW my rebuke of your comments has nothing to do with the US legal system. The result is the same in most first world countries (and many second and third world countries, as well). Indeed, very few countries offer an "it was accidental" escape liability card.

when a proffesional makes a mistake while in the process of exicuting his her proffession whether intentional or not and injiury or death occures they will always be responsible, they are proffessionally trained to execute said profession competantly, there is a certain expectation.........there are exceptions obviously where the recipient is aware of certain risks and a disclaimer is signed, if a dentist pulls a tooth and you die afterwards well I don't think you'd have expected that, if a patient dies during open heart surgery and was informed of the risks beforehand well that speaks for itself, but if the doctor sneezed during the proceedure and cut a main artery causeing death then that is neglegent

When two individuals decide to engage in a dangerous recreation sport which neither are proffessional then it is deemed they have both decided to accept the risks, the grey area here is deciding whether said individuals after an accident occurs where acting beyond what would be determined as acceptable, in this case either party could have been acting carelessly or both, outcome to be determined by evidence from witnesses etc, it is wrong to say the 15 year old was at fault just because he survived, we don't know all the details but it could have been the chinese guy made an error and caused the collision, in that senario why should there be compensation payed, if you drive a car down a street and another driver looses control and collides with your car then dies..............should you be responsible for damages ?

I don't think so..........sorry if I have missrepresented your post

Edited January 27, 2007 by gharknes

[Phil Conners]

If this keeps Danes or any other nationality from letting their 15 yearolds on Jetskis then great!!

You seem to be mad that some Thais don't get treated the same as this Danish family, yes if true that is too bad but that doesn't mean this family should not have to pay some compensation.

...

Why is this about money? Because the Chinese family has lost money. The chinese man who was killed no doubt was an income earner and had many years left to earn money to provide for his family, now that is gone. They are greatly affected the Danish family is not. So it is quite reasonable IF their 15 year old son was the cause they have to pay. 1.7 million baht is quite reasonable. The kid is 3 years from being a legal man, so he is not a young boy. Is the jet ski company at fault also? Yes, but the parents clearly let their kid ride the jet ski.

Thing is for Europeans coming here, they see everybody doing it, so "it must be ok". It's part of the babysitter culture of Western Europe. You can think what you like about that, but if Thailand wants to keep getting western tourists to come here they need to provide minimal protection for them. If not, Thailand will soon get a reputation of being too rough and wild-east and this type of tourists will go to better regulated areas. Of course the sex tourist couldn't care less, so they will keep coming. It's up to Thailand what type of tourists they want to attract.

The Thai's renting out the jet skies would rent them out to 2-year old if they though they could get away with it. What's needed is some regulation and control of the jetski business.

[Mai Krap]

This story has been a damm outrage from the start! Just for starters there has been no evidence submited that it was even the Danish kids fault, It might very well of been equal fault by both parties involved. Granted the loss of life is horrible but I see it about every day in Thailand. I will not be forgeting the poor old Danish lady I met whos husband was ran over by a Policeman driving a truck to fast who was never even tested for drink driving. This guy was trying to go out for dinner and knocked into a coma for a week then air evacuated out, who knows if he died or what after he was gone but I can tell you this, she was presented the bill and paid before her exit.

Yea its a damm outrage because people die here everyday and nothing happens, and for damm sure no money changes hands. Im aware of many deaths here Thai on Thai and I have never heard of one situation where anyone with money was forced to pay more than 40,000 TB over any death. What are the standards concerning these matters? Who is deciding how much a life is worth? Who has to play by rules and who gets to make them up as they go?

The biggest problem of all for Thailand is the impression that this boy was held hostage untill a ransom was paid. This will be played out over and over by the Nordic Media and is not the kind of thing thats reversable. I dont see it stopping Danish backpackers from coming but some of the VIP types with kids who actually watch the news and check places out before they go to them on holiday may very well decide not to come because of this single incident.

If this keeps Danes or any other nationality from letting their 15 yearolds on Jetskis then great!!

You seem to be mad that some Thais don't get treated the same as this Danish family, yes if true that is too bad but that doesn't mean this family should not have to pay some compensation.

compensation for deaths and injuries is common here and in other asian countries.

the insurance might have considered jet skiing a "dangerous sport" and probably had an exclusion clause.

in an advanced society , the local authorities would look at this accident have some kind of enquiry and impose some restrictions on jet ski operators , an age limit on users , ( this kid was 15 and probably had never used one before) and mark out special areas for jet skiing or for jet ski free swimming , thereby making things safer for the tourists.

have such measures been implemented in cha am ?

why is all this about money, it was an accident its about a young boy being killed by a jetski. Its a sad story but nobody is to blame. No money should be paid. Jet ski companies should have more control about where they allow customers to go...its the fault of beach zoning

Why is this about money? Because the Chinese family has lost money. The chinese man who was killed no doubt was an income earner and had many years left to earn money to provide for his family, now that is gone. They are greatly affected the Danish family is not. So it is quite reasonable IF their 15 year old son was the cause they have to pay. 1.7 million baht is quite reasonable. The kid is 3 years from being a legal man, so he is not a young boy. Is the jet ski company at fault also? Yes, but the parents clearly let their kid ride the jet ski.

As usual you miss the entire point, Mahuts die from elephants but is anyone suggesting Thais stop riding elepahants? Jet skis are dangerous but they are not going away and people will always continue to use them. Your idea that this crazy and outrageous treatment of one family will stop others from riding jet skis reveals much. Maybe you can write the Thai goverment and ask that motorcycles, trucks, and buses be banned and outlawed since they are the cause of so many deaths here?

Or maybe more focus could be put on using them as they were intended, safely and within reasonable limitations. How about making jet ski rentals teach classes and have insurance to cover such things. A better start would be to actually force all tourist boats to provide life jackets instead of taking pictures of them on one boat and then moving the life jackets to another boat to take more pictures to pass inspections. Also banning fake motorcycle helmets could help save many lives.

[old wanderer]

The Chinese couple then went further offshore with the Danish boy following.

People familiar to jetski will know that you can play with them and spray water around. You can navigate them similar to a bumper car, but not drive into each other. Still, regarding the unconfirmed information that was what happened when the Danish boy went to fast and lost control hitting the Chinese couple’s jetski. Whether the Chinese man was hit by the jetski or drowned is for the autopsy to decide.

Maritime law here also comes into play. For hundreds of years these laws have been pretty stable.

A vessle overtaking another vessle must keep clear. The overtaken (leading) vessle has the right-of-way.

In this case the Danish boy was the overtaking vessle and had no right-of-way, therefore all this speculation about the Chineese might have done something wrong, has no legal foundation.

As far as thoughs that say the money was a falang thing, think again my brother-in-law had to pay a taxi 80,000 baht he hit with no insurance. If not he would have been held in jail until he came up with the money. He is Thai.

[hastings]

Kind of...

Depends on what the coroner's (or equivalent) verdict was - a verdict of accidental death would involve no culpability on the Danish kiddy's part. Even if recklessness was a consideration leading to a manslaughter judgment, the kiddy is still a minor...

But then again, you live by the rules of the country you holiday in - them's the breaks...

Denotes a fundamental misunderstanding of law. A ruling of accidental death simply means no criminal culpability. People are held culpable for accidents every day in most every country. The amount 1.7 million baht is a substantial award in Thailand, and therefore reasonable under the circumstances.

Aha! Methinks I smell a yank! Wrong use of the word 'denotes'; gets 'most' confused with 'nearly'; and holds an unshakeable belief that the US legal system is correct in comparison to the rest of the world, rather than vice-versa Don't you people sue companies for not putting 'Warning: Hot Coffee' signs on cups of coffee and 'Warning: May Contain Nuts' on packets of nuts?

You are mistaken. Accidents are the subject of damage awards in most nations. Are you foolish enough to argue that because someone injured somebody else by accident (here the negligent conduct of operating a jet ski where people are also swimming), there can be no responsibility because it was accidental. Accident and fault (culpability) are not mutually exclusive. For example, when a doctor injures a patient during the course of a procedure it would be accidental (unless you would also argue that a doctor would injure his patient intentionally). Notwithstanding the doctor will generally be held liable for the injuries caused by his negligent conduct. If the patient dies as a result of the doctors error, a coroner's inquest may, as you argue, find that the death was accidental (the result of negligence). The doctor would still face damages for the injury caused. Similarly, auto v. pedestrian accidents happen all the time with the driver of he vehicle being found culpable for the pedestrian's injuries. If you want to argue the point, your original statement should have referenced a finding that the swimmer (as opposed to the jet ski driver) had been found at fault by a coroner's verdict. At least, you would have an argument for lack of culpability on the part of the driver under that circumstance (it would be similar to a child running into traffic in a manner in which the driver could not avoid the accident and thus was not responsible for its aftermath).

As for the term "denotes" the usage was correct. Denote(s) means "to signify directly or literally" and describes the relation between the word and the thing it conventionally names. Here it applies to your claim that the "coroner's verdict" would result in "no culpability."

BTW my rebuke of your comments has nothing to do with the US legal system. The result is the same in most first world countries (and many second and third world countries, as well). Indeed, very few countries offer an "it was accidental" escape liability card.

when a proffesional makes a mistake while in the process of exicuting his her proffession whether intentional or not and injiury or death occures they will always be responsible, they are proffessionally trained to execute said profession competantly, there is a certain expectation.........there are exceptions obviously where the recipient is aware of certain risks and a disclaimer is signed, if a dentist pulls a tooth and you die afterwards well I don't think you'd have expected that, if a patient dies during open heart surgery and was informed of the risks beforehand well that speaks for itself, but if the doctor sneezed during the proceedure and cut a main artery causeing death then that is neglegent

When two individuals decide to engage in a dangerous recreation sport which neither are proffessional then it is deemed they have both decided to accept the risks, the grey area here is deciding whether said individuals after an accident occurs where acting beyond what would be determined as acceptable, in this case either party could have been acting carelessly or both, outcome to be determined by evidence from witnesses etc, it is wrong to say the 15 year old was at fault just because he survived, we don't know all the details but it could have been the chinese guy made an error and caused the collision, in that senario why should there be compensation payed, if you drive a car down a street and another driver looses control and collides with your car then dies..............should you be responsible for damages ?

I don't think so..........sorry if I have missrepresented your post

Good points about assumption of the risk and intent. However, my post responded to the erroneous comment that a coroner's finding that the collision was accidental would have relieved the family of liability for the accident's consequences. There is nothing to suggest that this was not a tragic accident. That said one person died and the 15 year olds passport was confiscated, which implies that there was a finding of fault (whether justified or not). My point was that the mere fact of the accident does not excuse what seems to be negligent conduct.

[pampal]

Just look at the OJ Simpson trial in the US.

He was found to be not guilty in a criminal court, but

was found guilty in a civil court and has to pay money to the victims family. Even though he hasn't paid any or much money(I don't really know which), he was found liable monetarilly, while he was criminally not guilty.

So even if not guilty, you may still have to pay, it's not just Thailand, it's everywhere.