The problem of determining mental damages according to liability for the damages from unsafe product

Main Article Content

teerasak kongsombut

Abstract

As a consumer, examining products safety is complicated and it is likely that the consumer may use the goods that cause harm to life, body, health, hygiene, mentality or assets of themselves or even others. When the said damages occur, it is acceptable that the damages by obvious causes and evidence can indicate monetary values. However, the damages that cause to mentality which cannot estimate into monetary value seems problematic in legal consideration. Therefore, this research aims to study the aspects that raised up by this claim. The Liability from Damage arising from Unsafe Products Act has recently legislated against rule of law in claiming compensation from the perpetrator as according to the Civil Law. As mentioned in the Article 11 of that said Act, besides the injured person, their stakeholders including of spouses, parents, or heirscan claim the compensation for mental damages in case of the death of the injured person. Theoretically, these stakeholders have been injured mentally; therefore,it is right to demand the compensation for their mental damages from the perpetrator. This article would be against the existed principle to claim compensation in a civil case. It prescribes that mental compensation is strictly specifically reserved for the injured person to claim; in this case the researcher agrees with that the injured person deserves the right to be compensated and redress. Nevertheless, mental claim is conceptual and personal; therefore, allowing the stakeholders to claim for such mental compensation may induce the perpetrator more liability from the damages that cannot be proved particularly. Considering specifying compensation in a case of Civil Law including of the Supreme Court judgement, it demanded strict mental compensation for the injured person only. Moreover, it is important to bear in mind that the principles of compensation may not constitute injustice more than actual damage caused by the perpetrator to pay the compensation.


 


 

Article Details

Section
บทความวิจัย

References

ภาษาไทย

มานิตย์ วงศ์เสรี,วรรณชัย บุญบำรุง,พินัย ณ นคร,สมศักดิ์ นวตระกูลพิสุทธิ์และอิงอร จินตนาเลิศ.(2544).ความรับผิดต่อความเสียหายที่เกิดจากสินค้า(product Liability).หน้า 97.

เพ็ง เพ็งนิติ.(2552).คำอธิบายประมวลกฎหมายแพ่งและพาณิชย์ว่าด้วยละเมิด.หน้า442.

พิศวาส สุคนธพันธุ์.(2524).”ความเสียหายทางจิตใจ ตามกฎหมายระบบคอมมอนลอว์.”วารสารนิติศาสตร์,12,2.หน้า168.

อนันต์ จันทรโอภากร.(2544).การวิจัยเชิงกฎหายเปรียบเทียบเรื่อง กฎหมายว่าด้วยความรับผิดเพื่อความเสียหายอันเกิดจากสินค้าที่ขาดความปลอดภัย.อ้างแล้ว,หน้า16.

ภาษาต่างประเทศ

The Latest from Craig Smith, C. ’sBlog.June8,2006,formhttp://www.Craigsmithsblog.com/.