An Employee is working for the Employer. The Employee is delivering goods in the Company Car from Bangkok to Lopburi under the Employer’s direction. After completing the delivery to Lopburi, the Employee begins to drive the car back to Bangkok to return the car back to his Employee. The Employee stops at his Friend’s house before returning the car. The Friend gives the Employee 500 baht to deliver a package to a location in Bangkok. While on the way back to Bangkok, the Employee hits a Student’s car. Who is responsible for paying for the damage to the Student’s car?

The question of liability is complicated. Who has to compensate the Student for the damage to his car? The answer is that the student will only be able obtain compensation from some of the parties for the loss.

The Employee is Directly Liable

Under Thai law, a person who willfully or negligently unlawfully injures the life, body, health, property, or personal right of another person has committed a wrongful act. That person is bound to compensate the injured person for the damage.

In looking at the facts of the case without conflicting evidence, the Employee is liable for the damage to the Student’s car because he was the person who willfully or negligently hit the Student’s car. There was damage to the Student’s car. The Employee is guilty of the wrongful act and is bound to compensate the Student for the damage.

The Employer is Probably Jointly Liable

Under Thai law, an Employer is responsible for the actions of their Employees performed within the course of employment under a Master-Servant rule. If the Employer hired the Employee to render services for the remuneration, there is an Employer-Employee relationship. If the Employee commits a wrongful act in the course of his employment, the Employer is jointly responsible for the torts of their

Employee during the course of employment.

In reviewing the above question, it is reasonable to conclude that when the Employer ordered the Employee to use the company car to deliver its products from Bangkok to Lopburi, the Employer expected the Employee to return the company car back to Bangkok. The Employer could argue that the Employee was sidetracked in returning the company car and therefore the Employee was not in course of employment.

However, the issue of whether the Employee was in the course of employment is arguable and left for the court to decide. The Student can sue the Employer for compensation to the damage cause by their Employee. If the Employer loses, the Employer can sue the Employee for reimbursement of the court ruling.

The Friend is Probably Not Liable

Under Thai law, an Employer is not responsible for damage done by a Contractor in the course of work unless the damage was the result of the Employer’s instructions. A Contractor is considered an independent agent who brings their own tools and completes the hire task without detailed instructions on how to complete the task.

In the above fact pattern, the Friend hired the Employee to deliver a package to Bangkok. However, the Friend did not control the method of delivery or the route of delivery. The relationship between the between the Friend and the Employee was not deep enough to form an Employer-Employee relationship. It is more likely a Customer to Contractor situation. Therefore, the Friend is not liable for the Employee’s wrongful act.

Wrongful acts occur frequently in Thailand. Willful or negligent acts which injures the life, body, health, property, or personal right of another creates a tort. If the wrongful act is serious, the injured party should seek compensation for their injury.