Please Explain Thai Law - How Is One Held Responsible For The Actions Of Others

[pistonpilot]

Man killed in Sukumvit Road vehicle crash.

A terrible accident now from the Sukumvit Road in Central Pattaya. This was a collision between a cement truck and a motorbike driven by Khun Wachara aged 25 who was killed. The driver of the truck was Khun Paitoon aged 27 who remained at the scene to explain the crash to Police. He explained that he was transporting cement from Saraburi Province in Central Thailand to a construction site in Jomtien. On the Sukumvit Road as he was ending his long journey, the driver claims that the motorbike cut in front of him and broke sharply. The truck could not be controlled and drove over the motorbike driver. Under Thai law, Khun Paitoon will be held responsible for the crash and will face criminal charges.

[thelegend]

This is really easy to explain and to understand. The key is never to confuse the law with justice. Any lawyer will tell you they are totally unrelated.

[terdsak_12]

I don't think accidents happen here, someone has to be blamed for whatever happens.

[astral]

It is my understanding that whenever someone is killed, the case has to

be ajducated by the courts,

unless a suitable compensation is paid.

I expect the family of the motorcycle rider will be demanding payment.

[Diablo Bob]

Man killed in Sukumvit Road vehicle crash.

A terrible accident now from the Sukumvit Road in Central Pattaya. This was a collision between a cement truck and a motorbike driven by Khun Wachara aged 25 who was killed. The driver of the truck was Khun Paitoon aged 27 who remained at the scene to explain the crash to Police. He explained that he was transporting cement from Saraburi Province in Central Thailand to a construction site in Jomtien. On the Sukumvit Road as he was ending his long journey, the driver claims that the motorbike cut in front of him and broke sharply. The truck could not be controlled and drove over the motorbike driver. Under Thai law, Khun Paitoon will be held responsible for the crash and will face criminal charges.

Actually, it is quite easy to understand........

In Thailand there is the legal expression, called "Relative Responsibility".

Quite simple actually, Khun Wachara (Motorcyclist) was Related to an officer of the law, consequently he was demed IRRESPONSIBLE, thus making Khun Paitoon the RESPONSIBLE party.

Makes sense now doesn't it.......

[Gary A]

This is just a good example of why there are so many hit and run accidents. Years ago when I first came to Thailand, I was driving one of the Thai engineers I worked with from my home back into Bangkok. It was late at night and what looked like a drunk staggered onto the highway. I very nearly hit him. The Thai engineer asked me what I would have done if I had hit him. I replied that I would stop to see if I could help him. I was told to NEVER stop in a situation like that. If I had hit him it would have been my fault regardless on the circumstances. I really didn't believe him but unfortunately it WAS true.

[gpt]

It is not only Thailand that has strange traffic laws!

UK - you are stopped at either a stop sign or traffic lights, a cyclist runs into the back of your car. An ambulance is called to the scene, who pays for the an ambulance - you or the cyclist? If you said the cyclist then you would be wrong. The fee was £25

Saudi Arabia - a taxi that you are a passenger in is involved in a traffic accident, and it is your fault! The 'logic' behind this is that if you had not stopped the taxi at the time you did then the taxi would not have been at the scene of the accident. (I think that law has now been changed.

[ZZZ]

If you are a foreigner it's always your fault. Pretty obvious really, if you had stayed at home the accident would never have happened.

[chownah]

This was a rear end collision. Unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary the person who strikes from behind is at fault. This makes good sense because it is the person behind who controls the distance between vehicles...if the person behind is too close they can simply slow down to increase the following distance. In this case the truck driver claims that the cyclist cut in front and then hit the breaks....maybe true, maybe not. If there is an independent witness to corroborate his story they I'm reasonalby sure he will get off....if not then probably not.

Chownah

[Naam]

"Saudi Arabia - a taxi that you are a passenger in is involved in a traffic accident, and it is your fault! The 'logic' behind this is that if you had not stopped the taxi at the time you did then the taxi would not have been at the scene of the accident. (I think that law has now been changed)."

*****

that law is a fairy tale which exists in more than a dozen versions. however, there was indeed a case (1975 or so) when a saudi judge (in Jeddah) refused to grant compensation to a british expatriate who lost a leg and who's wife was killed in a car accident because a saudi driver ran a red light. the judge's sentence was ridiculously based on "if you had stayed in your country the accident wouldn't have happened".

the expatriate later appealed to (then) King Khaled and the royal house granted an appropriate sum as compensation.

[sbk]

I always thought it had to do with the size of the vehicle. It seems the larger vehicle will always be more responsible for the accident then the smaller vehicle.

ie, pickup truck hits motorcycle, truck is at fault

semi hits pickup, semi is at fault etc

Not really logical but that is the way it usually seems to play out in the Thai papers.

[guardian]

I always thought it had to do with the size of the vehicle. It seems the larger vehicle will always be more responsible for the accident then the smaller vehicle.

ie, pickup truck hits motorcycle, truck is at fault

semi hits pickup, semi is at fault etc

Not really logical but that is the way it usually seems to play out in the Thai papers.

Not only that, but it's the position the two vehicles are in which determines who gets the blame. From what I understand about Thai rule, if there's an accident between a vehicle going down a straight road, and another coming from a side road or turning, the one turning is always at fault irrespective of whose fault it is.

As you can see in this pic, my friend was turning into the side road from the main road. He waited for a few minutes before turning when this bloody drunk taxi driver came and rammed him on the back portion of his car which had already crossed into the 3rd lane. The taxi driver insisted he was correct and that my friend was the one at fault. Even the damned security guard of a restaurant who witnessed this blamed my friend.

The taxi had only prakhan 3 while my friend had prakhan 1. When the insurance guy came, even he agreed that the taxi was at fault but asked my friend to overlook it since he had 1st grade insurance.

[tuky]

I always thought it had to do with the size of the vehicle. It seems the larger vehicle will always be more responsible for the accident then the smaller vehicle.

ie, pickup truck hits motorcycle, truck is at fault

semi hits pickup, semi is at fault etc

Not really logical but that is the way it usually seems to play out in the Thai papers.

Not only that, but it's the position the two vehicles are in which determines who gets the blame. From what I understand about Thai rule, if there's an accident between a vehicle going down a straight road, and another coming from a side road or turning, the one turning is always at fault irrespective of whose fault it is.

As you can see in this pic, my friend was turning into the side road from the main road. He waited for a few minutes before turning when this bloody drunk taxi driver came and rammed him on the back portion of his car which had already crossed into the 3rd lane. The taxi driver insisted he was correct and that my friend was the one at fault. Even the damned security guard of a restaurant who witnessed this blamed my friend.

The taxi had only prakhan 3 while my friend had prakhan 1. When the insurance guy came, even he agreed that the taxi was at fault but asked my friend to overlook it since he had 1st grade insurance.

It looks like your friend was at fault to me mate, surely he doesn't think he had right of way there?

Turning in front of another car is a very silly move. Perhaps you have just drawn it incorrectly.

[Casanundra]

I always find Thai law and logic bemusing.

The mistake both drivers made was that the first one got himself killed and second that the lorry driver stuck around to explain things.

It's a sad fact that if you see someone injured here that you just do not get involved because the chances are you will either get blamed for it or receive the bill. A friend of mine who did not know these rules innocently helped a Thai man unconscious at the side of the road by taking him to hospital. Not only did the hospital demand he pay the hospital fees but also the unconscious man then went on to say it was the foreigner who made him unconscious in the first place and also demanded compensation.

Even back home in the litigation west it is advisable to not get involved because you could face a law suit for damage caused be it willingly or unwillingly.

It's a sad fact that we cannot help our fellow man anymore or even rely on the law to do the right thing but that's the world we have created and so we must reap the consequences.

Edited October 29, 2006 by Casanundra

[gpt]

"Saudi Arabia - a taxi that you are a passenger in is involved in a traffic accident, and it is your fault! The 'logic' behind this is that if you had not stopped the taxi at the time you did then the taxi would not have been at the scene of the accident. (I think that law has now been changed)."

*****

that law is a fairy tale which exists in more than a dozen versions. however, there was indeed a case (1975 or so) when a saudi judge (in Jeddah) refused to grant compensation to a british expatriate who lost a leg and who's wife was killed in a car accident because a saudi driver ran a red light. the judge's sentence was ridiculously based on "if you had stayed in your country the accident wouldn't have happened".

the expatriate later appealed to (then) King Khaled and the royal house granted an appropriate sum as compensation.

THat 'fairy tale' cost my mate, John Hammond, about £500 in 1980 when the taxi that he was in was involved in a collision travelling between Khobar Souq and his hotel in Dhahran.

[qualtrough]

If you are a foreigner it's always your fault. Pretty obvious really, if you had stayed at home the accident would never have happened.

Not true, and has been debunked on the Thailand Motor Forum by a number of different members. Not saying it never happens, but the idea that farangs are always found at fault is just not true.

[qualtrough]

The cement truck driver almost certainly was not maintaining a safe distance. Even if the biker did some bonehead stunt like stopping suddenly the truck driver should have been able to stop in time. He didn't just knock this guy off his bike, he hit and ran completely over him by the looks of it. The truck driver would be in trouble in any country I have driven in.

And to the person who posted his friend's accident diagram. I hope you aren't driving here. He turned in front of oncoming traffic, got hit, and it's the other guy's fault?? Not even here...

[billd766]

Back in 2002 I was on a frontage road in the right hand lane and we were all stopped to allow entry to vehicles from the left.

We had just been allowed to go when I heard a load bang and looking around a motorcycle had come up on my offside and smacked into a concrete pillar. On my car it looked as though the was a toe mark from a shoe in the dirt on the car. We all stopped again and the traffic controller (a security guard really) came ove r to see what had happened.

I don't even think I got the car in gear to go anyway. I had to wait for the police and called a Thai colleague to help me out. I was lucky enough to have my camera in the car and took a load of photos and eventually the police turned up after the rescue ambulance (a pick up truck).

My friend and I went to the police station and sat around for a couple of hours. Eventually I was given some forms in Thai to sign and my friend checked them first. I signed them and was allowed to go. The police said it was all the motorcylists fault and no blame was attached to me. On the way out the policeman asked for a copy of the photos which I delivered next day.

The police were friendly and helpful and I had no problems at all.

Farangs don't always get the blame and no money changed hands at all.

[LoveDaBlues]

If you are a foreigner it's always your fault. Pretty obvious really, if you had stayed at home the accident would never have happened.

common misconception

I always thought it had to do with the size of the vehicle. It seems the larger vehicle will always be more responsible for the accident then the smaller vehicle.

ie, pickup truck hits motorcycle, truck is at fault

semi hits pickup, semi is at fault etc

Not really logical but that is the way it usually seems to play out in the Thai papers.

My TW told me the larger vehicle is always at fault. I *think* the logic here is to try and protect the motorcycle drivers because there are so many and of course in a wreck have no protection. They want the car/truck drivers to be extra careful around motorcycles.

A friend was stopped at a red light in the early afternoon. He was in a Toyota car. A drunk male Thai came around the corner too fast, lost control and hit the side of the car. The driver of the car had top insurance. The police wrote up the report exactly as it happened; even including the fact that the motorcycle driver was drunk and at fault. The insurance company paid to fix both the car and motorcycle. My friend asked them why would they pay to fix the motorcycle when the driver was drunk and at fault? They replied, "you're in the bigger vehicle; that's the way the law works here".

[John K]

This thread begs for some actual examples. Many will recall a thread recently where two tourist were killed by construction equipment as there were waving flags provided to cross the street. There should have been some sort of closure on that by now. Does anyone know what happened to the driver of the construction equipment?

[ZZZ]

If you are a foreigner it's always your fault. Pretty obvious really, if you had stayed at home the accident would never have happened.

common misconception

OK, not "always" then. All rules have exceptions

But still think you have the odds against you unless the case is really clear cut, if for no other reson than a farang is more likely to have a comprehensive insurance.

[Ned]

The moral of the story is: Make sure you have Comprehensive Insurance. If you don't you could so easily end up behind bars and have your bank account emptied. Fact.

[Nam Kao]

I'll think i will stick with my motocy

[SamuiJens]

I agree with Ned Zepplin here, good inssurance will help!

[udon]

A Kuwaiti airline captain with parcels piled high walked in front of one of those little green buses out side the WTC.

He was seriously injured.

It clearly was not the bus drivers fault, but he ran away, just the same...... leaving all his pax stranded in the middle of the peak hour! (5.30PM)

The Kuwaiti eventually recovered. The driver is still on the run owing to the Kuwaiti's stupidity.

There is a pedestrian bridge 20 meters from the scene of the accident.

[Tony Clifton]

Man killed in Sukumvit Road vehicle crash.

A terrible accident now from the Sukumvit Road in Central Pattaya. This was a collision between a cement truck and a motorbike driven by Khun Wachara aged 25 who was killed. The driver of the truck was Khun Paitoon aged 27 who remained at the scene to explain the crash to Police. He explained that he was transporting cement from Saraburi Province in Central Thailand to a construction site in Jomtien. On the Sukumvit Road as he was ending his long journey, the driver claims that the motorbike cut in front of him and broke sharply. The truck could not be controlled and drove over the motorbike driver. Under Thai law, Khun Paitoon will be held responsible for the crash and will face criminal charges.

The magic words are in red. The truck could not be controlled, even if it was empty of cement , he was still driving too fast. Ever noticed how fast trucks drive by you while waiting at a u-turn, or how buses will come charging at a busy intersection blaring the horn saying " Watch out as I still will drive stupidly fast through this busy intersection because I'm sitting higher than you and my vehicle is bigger"

Most Thai truck and bus drivers would have their licences revoked within a week in most parts of the world. Again, you can only blame previous governments for having a reasonable road system that lacks surveillance and driver education.

Edited October 29, 2006 by Tony Clifton

[tropo]

Man killed in Sukumvit Road vehicle crash.

A terrible accident now from the Sukumvit Road in Central Pattaya. This was a collision between a cement truck and a motorbike driven by Khun Wachara aged 25 who was killed. The driver of the truck was Khun Paitoon aged 27 who remained at the scene to explain the crash to Police. He explained that he was transporting cement from Saraburi Province in Central Thailand to a construction site in Jomtien. On the Sukumvit Road as he was ending his long journey, the driver claims that the motorbike cut in front of him and broke sharply. The truck could not be controlled and drove over the motorbike driver. Under Thai law, Khun Paitoon will be held responsible for the crash and will face criminal charges.

I'm surprised you've even bothered to write this post. All that has been said in the news report is that he will "face criminal charges" which is exactly what would happen in any civilized country.

It doesn't say he has been convicted, and if he can show that the motorcycle was fully at fault, he will likely get off....but...

was the driver of the truck faultless?

I don't think so. Heavy, large trucks, and every other vehicle on the road for that matter, have a LEGAL responsibility (in every country) to drive at a speed that is safe for the conditions. A motorcycle cutting across another vehicle's path on Sukhimvit Road is very common occurance and drivers of heavy vehicles should allow for this.

In the best case scenario, and in the courts of most countries, the driver of the truck would at least be held partly responsible for the motorcyclist's death. We all know how fast these truck drivers drive in urban areas.

On Sukhimvit highway in Pattaya there are always thousands of motorcycles all over the place (I'm one of them). It's a dangerous road that needs some speed controls. There are almost weekly deaths on this road. Usually motorcyclist or pedestrians. It's one of the scariest roads I've ever used.

[pistonpilot]

Man killed in Sukumvit Road vehicle crash.

A terrible accident now from the Sukumvit Road in Central Pattaya. This was a collision between a cement truck and a motorbike driven by Khun Wachara aged 25 who was killed. The driver of the truck was Khun Paitoon aged 27 who remained at the scene to explain the crash to Police. He explained that he was transporting cement from Saraburi Province in Central Thailand to a construction site in Jomtien. On the Sukumvit Road as he was ending his long journey, the driver claims that the motorbike cut in front of him and broke sharply. The truck could not be controlled and drove over the motorbike driver. Under Thai law, Khun Paitoon will be held responsible for the crash and will face criminal charges.

I'm surprised you've even bothered to write this post. All that has been said in the news report is that he will "face criminal charges" which is exactly what would happen in any civilized country.

It doesn't say he has been convicted, and if he can show that the motorcycle was fully at fault, he will likely get off....but...

was the driver of the truck faultless?

I don't think so. Heavy, large trucks, and every other vehicle on the road for that matter, have a LEGAL responsibility (in every country) to drive at a speed that is safe for the conditions. A motorcycle cutting across another vehicle's path on Sukhimvit Road is very common occurance and drivers of heavy vehicles should allow for this.

In the best case scenario, and in the courts of most countries, the driver of the truck would at least be held partly responsible for the motorcyclist's death. We all know how fast these truck drivers drive in urban areas.

On Sukhimvit highway in Pattaya there are always thousands of motorcycles all over the place (I'm one of them). It's a dangerous road that needs some speed controls. There are almost weekly deaths on this road. Usually motorcyclist or pedestrians. It's one of the scariest roads I've ever used.

Evidently you haven't strayed to Pattaya Thai and made a left or a right onto Third Road. I too live in Pattaya and I live off Sukumvit. I cannot avoid it.

I would like to have a gun turret that my Thai Wife could use as self-defense.

You don't know if this truck driver was speeding or not. So how can you assume he should have done anything.

If I am driving a truck, and someone flings themselves off an overpass into my vehicle, am I at fault?

[tropo]

Evidently you haven't strayed to Pattaya Thai and made a left or a right onto Third Road. I too live in Pattaya and I live off Sukumvit. I cannot avoid it.

I would like to have a gun turret that my Thai Wife could use as self-defense.

You don't know if this truck driver was speeding or not. So how can you assume he should have done anything.

If I am driving a truck, and someone flings themselves off an overpass into my vehicle, am I at fault?

Evidently you have comprehension difficulties.

There were no assumptions given in my post, only possibilities. I was explaining that there is PROBABLY a SHARED responsibility between the truck driver and dead motorcyclist.

I've travelled thousands of kilometers on Pattaya Roads and know every intersection and I'm very familiar with the entire length of 3rd Road and Pattaya South Road. There is no road more dangerous than Sukhumvit (it's a highway) mainly because of the high speed of traffic on that road. Evidently that fact has escaped you.

Edited October 29, 2006 by tropo

[IMA_FARANG]

This was a rear end collision. Unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary the person who strikes from behind is at fault. This makes good sense because it is the person behind who controls the distance between vehicles...if the person behind is too close they can simply slow down to increase the following distance. In this case the truck driver claims that the cyclist cut in front and then hit the breaks....maybe true, maybe not. If there is an independent witness to corroborate his story they I'm reasonalby sure he will get off....if not then probably not.

Chownah

Unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary the person who strikes from behind is at fault

That is the key. Was the person behind traveling at a reasonable rate of speed, so that he/she was able to brake in time? If they were to close (tailgating) or traveling at a rate of speed that was excessive for the trafiic conditions so that they couldn't stop in time, then they are at fault.

The standard defense is that "I just couldn't stop in time" to avoid hitting them. Most traffic officers in the U.S. will always ask,"Why couldn't you stop in time?" often the answer is, "I was hurrying home/to work/etc., and I just couldn't stop in time." Next question is, "And how fast WERE you going?"

Edited October 30, 2006 by IMA_FARANG