You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

February 10, 2012

Compensation in a Wrongful Death Case

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Wrongful death claims can result in the assessment of civil and criminal penalties on parties that may be far removed from the negligent actor. The impact could be seen on officers and directors, manufacturers and dealers, employees and employers, agents and principals, insured and insurers, among others. This article is written for corporations and their officers and directors and includes an overview of wrongful death actions, significant components of awards, and protection mechanisms.

Wrongful Death Actions

A wrongful death action is brought by close relatives of the decedent for damages incurred as a result of the victim’s death. Liability is based on the concept of a “wrongful act” under Thai law, which is essentially an action in tort akin to a claim of negligence in common law jurisdictions. Establishing liability requires that the plaintiff show that the defendant acted willfully, negligently, or unlawfully, resulting in the death of the victim.

The court has the discretion to determine the manner and the extent of compensation according to the circumstances and the gravity of the wrongful act and may award compensation for the following:

  • Funeral and other necessary expenses
  • Expenses for medical treatment and loss of earnings (where there existed a period between the incident and the death)
  • Support that would have been provided by the decedent (where the claimant is legally entitled to support)
  • Damages where the decedent was bound by contract to perform services for an employer or contractor

Importantly, non-pecuniary damages (or damages that cannot be measured in money, such as damages for pain and suffering of the victim) are not recoverable by heirs, except where the wrongdoer agrees to pay compensation to the heirs for such damages.

Significant Components of Awards

The law gives the courts the discretion to assess damages on a case-by-case basis. At the same time, the law does not give absolute freedom to the courts to determine damages, and the exercise of power is limited by the various provisions contained in the Civil and Commercial Code.

A significant component of damages is the maintenance that would have been provided by the decedent to persons entitled to support. In Thailand, children are bound to support their parents, and parents are generally bound to support their children until the age of adulthood (20 years). Husbands and wives shall maintain and support each other, according to their abilities and conditions in life.

Thus, the court may consider factors such as the decedent’s level of education, salary or potential salary, and age. The court may also review the plaintiff’s age, status, living expenses, occupation, and other sources of support. In a 2008 case decided by the Court of Appeals, the parents received 10 million baht in compensation for the death of their daughter, caused when she fell out of a bus due to a broken door. Among other factors, the court observed that the victim was about to pursue her master’s degree in Japan and, on completion, would have earned an average monthly salary of 46,000 baht for about 20 years.

In addition, courts in Thailand consider the ability of the defendant to pay the judgment. In a case decided in 2007 with similar facts to the above case, but where the defendant had fewer means, the parents of the decedent received less than 300,000 baht from the Supreme Court.

Another critical consideration is the amount requested by the plaintiff in the complaint. By law, courts cannot exceed the demand requested by the plaintiff. Note, however, that the court may allow the plaintiff to amend the complaint in order to seek greater sums from the defendant.

Protection

Given the disparity in awards for wrongful death claims and the likelihood that corporations and their officers and directors will be subject to awards on the high end of the spectrum, it is important to maintain good business practices. Active oversight and management, careful delegation of important responsibilities, and timely and appropriate responses to emergency situations will go far in avoiding or mitigating any damages incurred in wrongful death lawsuits. Directors and officers should also take care to only sit on a board of a company in which they are actively involved.

Management should also consider purchasing quality insurance. It is recommended that such insurance include coverage for legal fees, as it is often costly to defend wrongful death litigation. Finally, legal risks can be reduced by seeking the advice of competent counsel, in a proactive and timely manner, in order to adequately respond to an emergency situation or prevent the occurrence of such situations.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

June 29, 2026
Thailand’s cabinet has approved the draft Act on Liability for Defective Goods, commonly called Thailand’s “Lemon Law.” The Draft Act is currently pending consideration by Parliament. The draft law aims to strengthen buyers’ position in pursuing cases against sellers. While the Civil and Commercial Code offers provisions governing liability for defective goods, it is difficult in practice for buyers to successfully make a claim against sellers, particularly where defects are latent and not discoverable at the time of sale or delivery. By introducing product-specific rules and clearer remedies, the new law is intended to modernize Thailand’s consumer protection framework and align it more closely with international standards, and to help relieve the buyer’s burden of proof against the seller in product liability cases. If enacted, the draft act will take effect 180 days after publication in the Government Gazette, giving businesses a transition period to assess their compliance obligations. This article provides an overview of the key provisions of the draft act and highlights some practical considerations for businesses operating in Thailand. Scope and Key Definitions The draft act applies to sellers—defined as persons who sell goods in the ordinary course of business—and protects buyers, a term defined broadly to include not just the original purchaser but also transferees and successors in title. This expands the class of people who can bring claims. The law does not apply to used goods, live animals, or goods exempted by future ministerial regulation. It also leaves intact any separate warranties, promises, advertisements, or other guarantees a seller has given; those remain enforceable alongside the new statutory rights. General Liability for Defective Goods Sellers are liable for defects that exist at the time of delivery, regardless of whether the seller knew about them. Liability arises where a defect reduces: The benefit intended under
Read More
June 22, 2026
Arbitrator independence and impartiality form the cornerstone of a legitimate arbitral process. Under section 19 of the Thai Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), prospective arbitrators must disclose circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence, and existing arbitrators must do so throughout proceedings. This mirrors article 12 of the UNCITRAL Model Law. Yet despite this clear mandate, practical implementation varies significantly across Thailand’s arbitration landscape. Background Thailand’s two principal arbitration institutions, the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI) and the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC), both maintain procedures for addressing arbitrator challenges and require compliance with the statutory disclosure obligation. Under both sets of rules, any party wishing to challenge an arbitrator must submit a challenge application within fifteen days of becoming aware of the relevant facts, and a committee is appointed to consider the matter on a case-by-case basis. The TAI additionally prescribes its Code of Ethics and Conduct for Arbitrators to further emphasize the expectation of impartiality and transparency. However, Thailand’s arbitration ecosystem extends well beyond the TAI and THAC. Several sector-specific institutions also administer arbitral proceedings, including the Thai Commercial Arbitration Office under the Board of Trade of Thailand, the Arbitration Centre of the Office of the Insurance Commission, the Arbitration Centre of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Office for the Prevention and Resolution of Disputes regarding Intellectual Property, and the Arbitration Centre of the Thai General Insurance Association. These institutions each operate under their own procedural rules, which were developed to serve particular industries and dispute profiles. The procedural mechanisms for securing and documenting an independence declaration are not uniformly established across these forums. Consequences of Procedural Inconsistency This creates a notable gap. Not all arbitration bodies have a formalized procedure requiring written independence statements before proceedings commence. Some tribunals proceed
Read More
June 16, 2026
The president of Thailand’s Supreme Court has issued new recommendations providing courts with criminal jurisdiction with a comprehensive framework for identifying and dismissing criminal cases brought in bad faith. Published in the Government Gazette on May 29, 2026, after being signed on May 25, the Recommendations of the President of the Supreme Court Concerning Bad-Faith Litigation in Criminal Cases B.E. 2569 were issued under Section 5 of the Act on the Organization of Courts of Justice. The recommendations took effect upon publication and represent a significant step in Thailand’s efforts to curb abusive criminal litigation, including strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP). Background Section 161/1 of Thailand’s Criminal Procedure Code empowers courts to dismiss criminal cases filed dishonestly or with the intent to harass or take unfair advantage of a defendant. The new recommendations provide detailed guidance that courts previously lacked on identifying and handling such prosecutions. Definition of Bad-Faith Litigation Under recommendation 1, filing a criminal case in bad faith is defined broadly to encompass three categories: Harassment-type filings involving intimidation, threats, or creating unreasonable hardship for the defendant; Coercive filings designed to pressure the defendant into acting or refraining from acting for illegitimate benefit; and False or misleading filings that deliberately assert incorrect material facts or conceal such facts. Circumstances Indicating Bad Faith Recommendation 2 sets out specific circumstances that should raise a court’s suspicion that a filing may violate section 161/1. These include: Filing in a distant court far from the defendant’s domicile without benefiting the adjudication; Retaliation against the defendant’s advocacy for human rights, environmental protection, consumer rights, labor rights, or other public interests—effectively establishing an express anti-SLAPP framework; Retaliation against whistleblowers who disclosed corruption or unlawful conduct; Retaliation against individuals responsible for investigating the plaintiff’s wrongdoing or who concluded such an investigation; Filing multiple
Read More
June 10, 2026
For multinational franchisors operating in Thailand, a key risk after franchise termination is that former outlets may continue operating in ways that could easily mislead consumers into believing they remain within the authorized network. To justify such operations, former franchisees often argue that the termination was invalid or ineffective. As a result, these cases are often treated as contractual disputes, making it difficult for franchisors to obtain injunctive relief before a final judgment confirms that the termination was lawful. Franchisors face significant commercial and reputational harm during lengthy proceedings, including consumer confusion, disruption to franchise restructuring, and damage to brand reputation and customer trust. In an encouraging development, the Thai court in a 2025 case responded to the problem of unauthorized post-termination franchise operations by granting interim relief, recognizing broader brand and consumer harm, and awarding substantial damages, highlighting a successful litigation strategy of framing the dispute not merely as a contractual termination issue but as trademark infringement causing ongoing commercial injury. The Subway Case From December 2024 to mid-2025, an unauthorized “Subway®” franchise operation in Thailand attracted substantial public and media attention. Reports and online discussions about unauthorized Subway® stores circulated widely after complaints arose about food quality and customer experience at certain outlets that were allegedly operating after their franchise rights had expired. Because these stores continued to use Subway® trademarks, trade dress, and overall commercial appearance, many consumers were unable to distinguish them from authorized operations, resulting in reputational risks and customer confusion that affected the franchisor’s brand and franchise system in Thailand. Subway treated this matter with the utmost seriousness and moved promptly to protect its brand, franchise system, and customers. It filed a civil action with the IP&IT Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. During the proceedings, the court granted a preliminary injunction
Read More