Court orders cop to pay 27.3m baht to parents of eye doctor he ran over

[reader]

NOTE -- This article begs the question: why is the cop still a member of the force (see final paragraph)?

From The Nation

The Civil Court has ordered a police officer to pay 27.3 million baht to the parents of an eye doctor he hit and killed at a Bangkok zebra crossing in 2022.

The court ruled that Police Lance Corporal Norawich Buadok was solely responsible for the death of Dr Waraluck Supawatjariyakul, as it dismissed the lawsuit against the Royal Thai Police (RTP) as an entity. The late doctor’s parents filed a lawsuit against the RTP and the cop for 72 million baht compensation on February 17, 2022.

About a month earlier, on January 21, Norawich had been riding a red Ducati big bike when he slammed into ophthalmologist Waraluck as she was crossing the road in front of Bhumirajanagarindra Kidney Institute Hospital on Phya Thai Road. Waralak’s parents, Dr Anirut Supawatjariyakul and Ratchanee Supawatjariyakul, named RTP as the first defendant and Norawich as the second defendant in the civil lawsuit.

The lawsuit demanded that the RTP and Norawich jointly pay 537,505 baht for funeral expenses and 72.27 million baht for the parents’ caring costs.

The lawsuit said that RTP should share responsibility for the tragedy as it was the commanding agency of Norawich and should have taught him not to breach traffic laws, speed through a zebra crossing or use a motorcycle that violates the law on various counts. The lawsuit also said it was RTP’s duty to manage traffic and ensure the safety of pedestrians.

The court, however, disagreed, saying that Norawich was the sole person responsible for the doctor’s death. Also, it said, Norawich’s direct commanders were responsible for his behaviour, and they had taken all the steps necessary to ensure he observed traffic laws.

The court also said it was the local administration’s duty to oversee traffic management, not the duty of RTP.

The court awarded 331,230 baht as funeral costs and a compensation of 13.5 million baht to each parent.

It the compensation was calculated based on the parents’ potential lifespan and the money the doctor would have earned if she were still alive. The parents are now both 64 years old and the court believes they will live for at least another 15 years.

The court has also ordered Norawich to pay a 5% per annum interest on all three amounts from January 21, 2022, until the entire compensation has been paid off.

In January this year, the Appeals Court also took a tough stance against the accused. Norawich had initially been sentenced to just one year and 15 days, but on Wednesday, the Appeals Court increased his sentence to 10 years and two months in response to an appeal filed by Waraluck’s family.

The RTP announced that if the Supreme Court retains a guilty verdict, he will be fired from police service.

 

[Keithambrose]

So how is the family supposed to collect the judgment? Seems likely that is why the Court dismissed the claim against the RTP, who would be able to pay. 

[vinapu]

4 hours ago, Keithambrose said:

So how is the family supposed to collect the judgment? Seems likely that is why the Court dismissed the claim against the RTP, who would be able to pay. 

my thought excatly

[reader]

The court's sleight of hand ensured that the government escapes any responsibility. But that still doesn't explain why the RTP keeps the perp on the force.

[xpaulo]

16 hours ago, Keithambrose said:

So how is the family supposed to collect the judgment?

I believe this is relatively common now in the United States. Various jurisdictions have passed laws that limit the police department's liability even in cases where the officer was on duty. There has to be proof the department was responsible for the actions of the officer or otherwise negligent. Instead, all the liability is put on the officer. But officers generally will not have a lot of cash or assets so it's a lot harder for the victim to find a lawyer if there's no chance of a big pot of gold at the end of it all. Also, juries are less likely to find an individual officer liable than a police department.

[unicorn]

4 hours ago, xpaulo said:

I believe this is relatively common now in the United States. Various jurisdictions have passed laws that limit the police department's liability even in cases where the officer was on duty. There has to be proof the department was responsible for the actions of the officer or otherwise negligent. Instead, all the liability is put on the officer. But officers generally will not have a lot of cash or assets so it's a lot harder for the victim to find a lawyer if there's no chance of a big pot of gold at the end of it all. Also, juries are less likely to find an individual officer liable than a police department.

This makes sense from a rational perspective. Why would the police department itself be responsible, unless it had information that this officer had a history of bad driving behavior and allowed him to drive anyway? For example, if the officer had been convicted of driving under the influence, or reckless driving, but was allowed to drive for the department anyway, then they should be held responsible. I don't perceive any responsibility on their part, however, if there was no history of such behavior.

[Keithambrose]

Fair points have been made, but I note that the bike was uninsured, and had no licence plates, and well over the speed limit,  and the culprit was in the traffic control department!

[unicorn]

Just now, Keithambrose said:

Fair points have been made, but I note that the bike was uninsured, and had no licence plates, and well over the speed limit,  and the culprit was in the traffic control department!

Again, if the police department knew, or should have known, about this officer's transgressions, that might be a problem for them. Otherwise, the responsible person should be held responsible. I would think that, given the number of laws broken, the officer should be fired (and fined and imprisoned). I recently posted a string about a woman in my area (Los Angeles County) who killed a couple of kids while engaging in an exhibition of speed on a public roadway. She was actually convicted of murder. I opined in that string that I felt that a voluntary manslaughter conviction would have been more appropriate, since in California the definition of murder involves an intent to kill someone. I don't know Thai law, but I'd think that there's some crime in there which would involve imprisonment. In California, my understanding is that the prisoner must work in prison to pay restitution, with 70% of the earnings going to the family. 

[xpaulo]

5 hours ago, unicorn said:

This makes sense from a rational perspective.

Completely valid comment. In Canada however police officers routinely lie to coverup for their colleagues and their departments. They will even lie in court knowing that everyone knows they are lying. An us versus them (them being the public) mindset has taken hold among many police officers that they feel justifies any kind of misconduct. And a veteran officer recently told me it appears to be getting worse. The point being, getting the truth about the level of involvement by other officers or a department may be difficult.

[Keithambrose]

10 hours ago, unicorn said:

Again, if the police department knew, or should have known, about this officer's transgressions, that might be a problem for them. Otherwise, the responsible person should be held responsible. I would think that, given the number of laws broken, the officer should be fired (and fined and imprisoned). I recently posted a string about a woman in my area (Los Angeles County) who killed a couple of kids while engaging in an exhibition of speed on a public roadway. She was actually convicted of murder. I opined in that string that I felt that a voluntary manslaughter conviction would have been more appropriate, since in California the definition of murder involves an intent to kill someone. I don't know Thai law, but I'd think that there's some crime in there which would involve imprisonment. In California, my understanding is that the prisoner must work in prison to pay restitution, with 70% of the earnings going to the family. 

He was fined, and imprisoned.  Not fired till appeals exhausted,  which could be some time, being Thailand! Judging  from my reading of State Court judgements in the USA, the Police Authority would certainly  have been a Defendant in a damages claim, in the USA, and with a jury trial, a good chance they would be held liable.

[reader]

Although the laws of tort liability differ in Thailand, the conduct of the employee was so egregious that their dismissal from the RTP would have warranted dismissal.

[unicorn]

9 hours ago, Keithambrose said:

... in the USA, the Police Authority would certainly  have been a Defendant in a damages claim, in the USA, and with a jury trial, a good chance they would be held liable.

Probably true, but it doesn't make it right. In my opinion, a person or entity shouldn't be held responsible over something over which they have no control, and were therefore not culpable. Again, if they had information this was a bad cop, and put him in that position, then yes, they share some culpability. I don't think they should be called "responsible" simply because they have more money. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Keithambrose]

3 hours ago, unicorn said:

Probably true, but it doesn't make it right. In my opinion, a person or entity shouldn't be held responsible over something over which they have no control, and were therefore not culpable. Again, if they had information this was a bad cop, and put him in that position, then yes, they share some culpability. I don't think they should be called "responsible" simply because they have more money. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Without wishing to be controversial, I have noticed that in the US, particularly  State Courts, and a jury trial,  of which I have had some experience, two wrongs do make a right! I have acted for companies that have been found liable for the acts of their employees, precisely  because the jury recognised  that the company could pay. Sometimes you have many multiple defendants, 'old uncle  tom cobley and all', quite absurd from a logical, or legal, point of view, but that's how the cases go. When I started my legal career, the Oil Majors had US jurisdiction in their contracts. That slowly shifted to English law, which was found to be more reliable.