Father wants 30 million baht after pregnant daughter fell on the train tracks

[webfact]

Father wants 30 million baht after pregnant daughter fell on the train tracks

 

 

Picture: Daily News

 

A grieving Thai father has petitioned the court in Bangkok after his 32 year old pregnant daughter fell on the train tracks on the Airport Rail Link and was killed by a train.

 

The accident happened at the Ban Thap Chang station on the 18th of June 2017.

 

Rosarin Plianla, from Nan province in the north of Thailand, who was six months pregnant was on her way to work when she fell.

 

Yesterday her father Weera Plianla and his lawyer went to Prakhanong court. Named as defendants in the lawsuit were Airport Rail Link, the State Railways, the Communications' Ministry and the Minister himself.

 

Weera told the press that he had received little help after contact with the Airport Rail Link. He had received 400,000 baht from an insurance fund.

 

Now he is claiming 30 million baht in damages.

 

The court is set to discuss the matter on July 23rd of this year.

 

Source: Daily News

 

-- © Copyright Thai Visa News 2018-05-23

[kingkenny]

I remember this day as I was waiting for the train at Lat Krabang but obviously they had all stopped, I saw the video later. I am not quite sure how they were negligent as she walked forward herself and fell onto the tracks, maybe fainted.  The only way to have stopped this would have been the barriers that are at some BTS stations now.

[sweatalot]

How much is too much for a lost loved one?

 

But we also have to compare with what is normal in a country

 

and what was the fault of the defendant

 

I feel sorry for the family  but 

 

I wonder if greed is the bigger motive than grief

Edited May 23, 2018 by sweatalot

[Get Real]

So his daugther goes to the trian station and fall in front of a train.. After that he want 30 million baht, from the one responsible? But his daugther is unfortunately dead, so the responsible in this case is not able to pay.

Edited May 23, 2018 by Get Real

[KhunBENQ]

I remember this very good and studied the video so often.

Sorry to say, but for me very clear that she did not simply fall/faint but even jumped.

And in any case (assuming fall) what would justify such damage request?

Edited May 23, 2018 by KhunBENQ

[DoctorG]

One would normally have to prove negligence to receive damages. Does not appear to be the case here.

[phantomfiddler]

Call me cynical but if the father could have the choice between 30m or his daughter back methinks he would take the former, he just has that look about him.

[helloagain]

17 hours ago, sweatalot said:

How much is too much for a lost loved one?

 

But we also have to compare with what is normal in a country

 

and what was the fault of the defendant

 

I feel sorry for the family  but 

 

I wonder if greed is the bigger motive than grief

30 million no chance

[colinneil]

He wants 30 million, greedy sod.

Your poor unfortunate daughter fell on to the train tracks, sad too young to die, but your greed is beyond belief.

Your daughter died and you see it as a way to make money, disgusting.

[Jai Dee]

A crude flame post directed at another member has been removed from this thread.

[worgeordie]

He's very lucky he got 400,000 THB, the relatives of other victims

killed in accidents that were not their fault have gotten far less,

I am afraid asking for 30 M,he is just dreaming,maybe been pushed

by his lawyer,who will have his eyes on the 400,000 he has already

gotten.

regards worgeordie

[new2here]

18 hours ago, sweatalot said:

How much is too much for a lost loved one?

 

But we also have to compare with what is normal in a country

 

and what was the fault of the defendant

 

I feel sorry for the family  but 

 

I wonder if greed is the bigger motive than grief

I agree on that I think these kinds of cases have to be looked at through the lens of defendant liability (to what percentage does any one party bear liability) and compensatory.

 

On the compensatory side, I think this part really should be via an actuarial table given the deceased age, occupation and other forward-looking economic variables.  From here I think a fair compensatory figure can be made.. I don’t know what the deceased did for work, but as ugly as it perhaps is, to me, there is an economic difference between the death of a high-salaried professional versus a low-salaried laborer... this isn’t a morals based issue as it see, but quite simply placing a best-estimate assessment about the economic value of the deceased.

 

On the liability side, here is where I think punitive figures can come into play— but I think it first needs to be determined who had fault/liability and to what percentage of the whole.  If it turns out that the deceased was partially at fault, then I see nothing wrong with a corresponding reduction in payment, to acknowledge the share of liability the deceased had in the events. 

[LazySlipper]

15 hours ago, KhunBENQ said:

And in any case (assuming fall) what would justify such damage request?

If we break it down it comes to around 1 000 000$ US, which back home in the west would probably be tenfold. Then it would be subject to negotiation... start high settle for less. So, IMHO it is a fair amount to ask if her mental state and the circumstances can lead to prove that it was an accident. 

 

Were it suicide, then no dice and no deal...

 

Still a sad story and what a way to go.

[LazySlipper]

4 hours ago, phantomfiddler said:

he just has that look about him.

 

I hope you never sit on a jury panel where I would be the accused...

[oldlakey]

8 hours ago, phantomfiddler said:

Call me cynical but if the father could have the choice between 30m or his daughter back methinks he would take the former, he just has that look about him.

Extremely distasteful  to say the least

I will leave it at that

[moe666]

In a nut shell the train company didn't do enough to prevent the incident from happening with the loss of life. Should have barriers, more security guards to prevent. A old friend of mine worked for the New Mexico highway department, he was sued along with the state by a woman who drove her can into a barricaded area.She won a percentage of a judgement as each enity was found guilty by a percentage. This happen even though it was determined that barricades were all set up following all of the local, national, and international rules. She may have killed her self but the train Company could still be found liable. But probably not in Thailand

[oldlakey]

4 minutes ago, moe666 said:

In a nut shell the train company didn't do enough to prevent the incident from happening with the loss of life. Should have barriers, more security guards to prevent. A old friend of mine worked for the New Mexico highway department, he was sued along with the state by a woman who drove her can into a barricaded area.She won a percentage of a judgement as each enity was found guilty by a percentage. This happen even though it was determined that barricades were all set up following all of the local, national, and international rules. She may have killed her self but the train Company could still be found liable. But probably not in Thailand

Or any sensible country for that matter

[Katia]

What, exactly, was the train company supposed to do?  Have security guards stand on either side of her and hold her up?  Force her to sit down until the train came?  The platforms are not narrow; unless she was crowded* or pushed, I don't understand how she would have fallen accidentally unless she purposely went too close to the edge.  If she has vertigo or in other ways isn't feeling well enough to stand unassisted, that is not the fault of the train company.  I would need a lot more information before I pin the blame on them, I guess.

 

*Having ridden the ARL, I certainly know there are plenty of crowds pressing usually, but...