In an unusual accident involving a remote-controlled plane, a 48 year old woman suffered severe finger injuries and claims the responsible party, allegedly linked to a police officer, took little accountability. The incident occurred at a field near Bang Bua Thong School in Nonthaburi, a popular spot where people play with RC planes.

 

Pornphat, the woman who sustained the serious injuries, said that she had finished her company job and stopped by the field, a regular hangout spot, before heading home on July 12. While she was playing a game, an RC plane flown by someone in a group of five or six people hit her fingers leading to significant damage. It resulted in one of her little fingers being broken, experiencing significant flesh loss, and her left ring finger suffering a laceration.

 

After the unexpected RC plane accident, her bandaged hands severely hampered her work life. Daily chores became a challenge as the wounded finger could not bear any pressure so she was limited to using her right hand only. Her usual commute driving her car was too painful, and she had to take taxis, vans, and motorcycles instead. Ongoing medical expenses and regular dressing of her wounds incurred additional costs.

While the party responsible for the RC plane accident paid the original medical bill of 17,179 baht, Pornphat was not content. She feels that payment alone may not be fair justice considering the extent of her physical injuries and mental distress and future medical bills, reported Sanook.

 

by Samantha Rose 

TOP: An RC accident left a Nonthaburi woman with injured fingers and considers a lawsuit. (via Sanook)
Photo courtesy of Sanook

 

Full story: https://thethaiger.com/news/bangkok/nonthaburi-woman-considers-lawsuit-after-rc-plane-incident-leads-to-severe-finger-injuries

 

-- © Copyright Thaiger 2023-07-29

 

- Cigna offers a range of visa-compliant plans that meet the minimum requirement of medical treatment, including COVID-19, up to THB 3m. For more information on all expat health insurance plans click here.

Milking it for all its worth

 

I didn't know that aircraft have religions!

This aircraft appears to be a Roman Catholic!

It is bad enough when members post in text speak but when news reports stoop to that level I get really mad.  If people must use initials they should at leas put the words in full first followed by the abbreviation/acronym. It appears the aircraft referred to is a Radio Controlled (RC) aircraft!

1 hour ago, Peabody said:

Milking it for all its worth

 

No doubt learned from US fender chasers!

She is certainly getting RC about it!

1 hour ago, Peabody said:

Milking it for all its worth

 

Is only covering the bill adequate?

Compensation for suffering here seems to be non-existant.

5 hours ago, webfact said:

her bandaged hands severely hampered her work life.

Her job is????

Third Party insurance should be mandatory for operators of radio controlled (RC) model aircraft . But TiT.

The lady went voluntarily to a known flying field and was 'playing a game' when she was injured. ????

27 minutes ago, hotchilli said:

Is only covering the bill adequate?

Compensation for suffering here seems to be non-existant.

That's what the wai is for.

3 hours ago, Peabody said:

Milking it for all its worth

She should be fairly compensated for any expenses, loss of earnings or loss of amenities.  That means a lot more than the initial medical fees.

 

She did nothing wrong and is suffering as the result of another's negligence.

7 hours ago, webfact said:

While the party responsible for the RC plane accident paid the original medical bill of 17,179 baht, Pornphat was not content.

Greed. she can get dressings at a clinic 30b. As for driving to work, she must work for a not very good company, no sick pay. Taxis, vans and M/C or all three.?   

7 hours ago, webfact said:

While the party responsible for the RC plane accident paid the original medical bill of 17,179 baht, Pornphat was not content.

Greed. she can get dressings at a clinic 30b. As for driving to work, she must work for a not very good company, no sick pay. Taxis, vans and M/C or all three.?   

Is the RC plane ok ? 

No problem gripping a large heavy mobile to play those games again.

Reason why in countries like Aus, public are not allowed within certain areas, flight insurance is a must, flying only allowed within certain boundaries of CASA approved flying fields, flyers must be approved.

But, as they say, TIT.

So the compensation arrangement is more than likely up to the village head.

Just hope the flyers don't infringe on airspace used by light aircraft or others.

Edited July 29, 20232 yr by bluejets

9 hours ago, PETERTHEEATER said:

Third Party insurance should be mandatory for operators of radio controlled (RC) model aircraft . But TiT.

The lady went voluntarily to a known flying field and was 'playing a game' when she was injured. ????

Soon we will need 3rd party insurance to step outside. 

6 hours ago, bluejets said:

Reason why in countries like Aus, public are not allowed within certain areas, flight insurance is a must, flying only allowed within certain boundaries of CASA approved flying fields, flyers must be approved.

But, as they say, TIT.

So the compensation arrangement is more than likely up to the village head.

Just hope the flyers don't infringe on airspace used by light aircraft or others.

The western way. See how much fun you can ruin with bureaucratic nonsense. And even with all the rules and bs, there is still incidents.

 

If you think you can bring your hobby drone to the outside of an airport in Thailand, you'd be mistaken. 

 

It is obvious from the article that the woman was in an area understood to be used by hobby drone flyers. It was an accident. Nobody is obligated to give her compensation. 

 

 

Maybe she should have shown more diligence and not been walking through a place where people were flying planes, not looking where she was going or what was going on around her while playing games on her phone.

 

 

 

7 hours ago, BangkokReady said:

She should be fairly compensated for any expenses, loss of earnings or loss of amenities.  That means a lot more than the initial medical fees.

 

She did nothing wrong and is suffering as the result of another's negligence.

She doesn't deserve anything. Read the article again. 

 

The incident occurred at a field near Bang Bua Thong School in Nonthaburi, a popular spot where people play with RC planes.

 

Pornphat, the woman who sustained the serious injuries, said that she had finished her company job and stopped by the field, 

10 minutes ago, Harsh Jones said:

She doesn't deserve anything. Read the article again. 

I advise you to read the article again, as she most certainly does.

 

10 minutes ago, Harsh Jones said:

The incident occurred at a field near Bang Bua Thong School in Nonthaburi, a popular spot where people play with RC planes.

A field, yes, and?  Was it a special "RC plane only" field where the public are prohibited from going?  Doesn't sound like it.  It also says it is a popular hang out spot.  So is hanging out aloud but RC plane flying not?

 

The fact that people like to fly RC planes there means nothing.

 

10 minutes ago, Harsh Jones said:

Pornphat, the woman who sustained the serious injuries, said that she had finished her company job and stopped by the field, 

So what?  What does her "stopping by " the field have to do with it?

 

The article says nothing to suggest that the woman is at fault for visiting the filed, while it does suggest the man piloting the RC is at fault as he flew the plain into the woman.

 

You appear to have very much misunderstood the situation.

13 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

I advise you to read the article again, as she most certainly does.

 

A field, yes, and?  Was it a special "RC plane only" field where the public are prohibited from going?  Doesn't sound like it.  It also says it is a popular hang out spot.  So is hanging out aloud but RC plane flying not?

 

The fact that people like to fly RC planes there means nothing.

 

So what?  What does her "stopping by " the field have to do with it?

 

The article says nothing to suggest that the woman is at fault for visiting the filed, while it does suggest the man piloting the RC is at fault as he flew the plain into the woman.

 

You appear to have very much misunderstood the situation.

I am not the one misunderstood at all.

 

It was public space understood to be used for a specific activity at the time. If people were playing cricket at the field, and she got belted in the hand with an errant cricket ball, should she get compensation too ?

 

 

I thought the Pope was flying it!

 

8 hours ago, Harsh Jones said:

I am not the one misunderstood at all.

Clearly you are.

 

8 hours ago, Harsh Jones said:

It was public space understood to be used for a specific activity at the time.

No, it wasn't.  You're making that up.  If it is a hang out spot, it's clearly used for many things.  As I said, the article clearly states that it is a popular hang out spot as well as a place where people fly RC planes.

 

There is no priority for RC plane flyers and no reason that people should not be there for any other reason.

 

8 hours ago, Harsh Jones said:

If people were playing cricket at the field, and she got belted in the hand with an errant cricket ball, should she get compensation too ?

Obviously, yes.  If she has done nothing wrong and has suffered a serious injury due to the negligence of another.  This is a very standard reason for compensation to be given.

Edited July 30, 20232 yr by BangkokReady

There are two sides to every story.

It infers that the 'pilot' is connected to the police.

Does she drive a manual car that requires all five digits to change gear?

As others have already said, it looks like she's trying to milk this for all it's worth, and I would say 17k isn't such a bad chunk of compensation. Ok ok.. that wasn't 'compensation' as it paid the expenses, but she's not whiter than white in my opinion.

17 hours ago, brianthainess said:

Is the RC plane ok ? 

Yes, the Pope said a prayer for it and sent his blessings

On 7/29/2023 at 8:56 AM, webfact said:

before heading home on July 12. While she was playing a game, an RC plane flown by someone in a group of five or six people hit her fingers leading to significant damage

How can an RC plane enter here house and chop her finger.

9 hours ago, Harsh Jones said:

I am not the one misunderstood at all.

 

It was public space understood to be used for a specific activity at the time. If people were playing cricket at the field, and she got belted in the hand with an errant cricket ball, should she get compensation too ?

 

 

I read the OP as saying that she 'went home' after work to play a game, and not hang around in a field.

19 minutes ago, KannikaP said:

How can an RC plane enter here house and chop her finger.

"The incident occurred at a field near Bang Bua Thong School in Nonthaburi, a popular spot where people play with RC planes."

 

"Pornphat, the woman who sustained the serious injuries, said that she had finished her company job and stopped by the field, a regular hangout spot, before heading home on July 12."

1 hour ago, BangkokReady said:

Clearly you are.

 

No, it wasn't.  You're making that up.  If it is a hang out spot, it's clearly used for many things.  As I said, the article clearly states that it is a popular hang out spot as well as a place where people fly RC planes.

 

There is no priority for RC plane flyers and no reason that people should not be there for any other reason.

 

Obviously, yes.  If she has done nothing wrong and has suffered a serious injury due to the negligence of another.  This is a very standard reason for compensation to be given.

Umm sometimes balls bounce off course and hit people adjacent to the field. It is just pure chance and not the negligence of anyone. 

 

Pretty soon we will have to sign waivers just to enter public parks. Because of complete and utter nonsense like this. 

2 minutes ago, Harsh Jones said:

Umm sometimes balls bounce off course and hit people adjacent to the field. It is just pure chance and not the negligence of anyone. 

If people cannot ensure that no one is injured when they play a sport (or do any activity) in an area of shared use, they shouldn't be playing that sport there.  If you are in a park, or any other shared use area, you shouldn't be put in danger by other people's negligence, hence compensation is deserved where serious injury occurs.  (If you can't keep people safe, then you are negligent.)

 

Accidents happen, of course, but the fact that they happen means someone shouldn't be doing something where it's easy to injure someone nearby.  It doesn't mean that, should anyone be seriously injured, people just shrug it off and say "Oh well.  Accidents happen."

 

2 minutes ago, Harsh Jones said:

Pretty soon we will have to sign waivers just to enter public parks. Because of complete and utter nonsense like this. 

No need for a waiver, and compensation for serious injury isn't nonsense at all.  You shouldn't do things in public that endanger people.  And if you do, and then injure someone, you pay to right the wrong that you caused.