Historic ruling classifies train-car crashes as mutual fault due to negligence.

MGR Online•General•2d ago

Reader Briefing

A historic Supreme Court ruling clarifies that in train-vehicle collisions, both parties can be held negligent if they fail to exercise due care.

•A former senior Supreme Court judge referenced a 1994 ruling (Supreme Court Case 2703/1994) to highlight that both train drivers and motorists share responsibility in accidents at railway crossings.
•The ruling involved a pickup truck driver who drove under a lowering barrier and a train driver who failed to stop despite a malfunctioning signal, leading to a fatal collision.
•The court found both parties negligent: the truck driver for reckless endangerment and the train driver for failing to adhere to safety protocols.

•Mr. Wat Tingsoomit, an independent academic and former senior Supreme Court judge, shared a historic Supreme Court Case 2703/1994.
•This case serves as a lesson for road users and officials regarding accidents at railway crossings.
•The 'right of way' does not absolve individuals from the duty to exercise caution.
•The pickup truck driver accelerated under a barrier that had only lowered one meter, despite clear warning and stop signs.
•The train driver did not stop the train to check for safety, as required, even though the signal system was malfunctioning.
•The accident resulted in the immediate death of two passengers in the rear of the pickup truck.
•The Supreme Court established that if a train driver neglects safety regulations, they must face criminal penalties for negligence.
•The court ruled that if both parties neglect their duties of caution, the loss is considered to be from the negligence of both.

Full article content is available on the original source.

Mr. Wat Tingsoomit

"Right of way is not a privilege above caution."

สิทธิในทาง ไม่ใช่อภิสิทธิ์เหนือความระมัดระวัง

Mr. Wat Tingsoomit

"If the train driver neglects safety regulations, they must also face criminal penalties for negligence."

หากพนักงานขับรถไฟละเลยกฎระเบียบความปลอดภัยก็ต้องรับโทษทางอาญาฐานประมาทเช่นกัน

Mr. Wat Tingsoomit

"When each party neglects caution according to their duty and nature, the loss is considered to be from the negligence of both parties."

เมื่อต่างฝ่ายต่างละเลยความระมัดระวังตามหน้าที่และวิสัยของตน ย่อมถือว่าความสูญเสียเกิดจากความประมาทของทั้งสองฝ่าย

Mr. Wat Tingsoomit(นายวัส ติงสมิตร)

An independent academic and former senior Supreme Court judge who cited a historic court case.

Supreme Court(ศาลฎีกา)ℹ️

The highest court in Thailand, which issued the historic ruling discussed in the article.

Supreme Court Case 2703/1994(คำพิพากษาศาลฎีกาที่ 2703/1994)

A historic Supreme Court ruling from 1994 that establishes legal precedent for shared responsibility in train-vehicle accidents.