Each Driver's Own Negligence Was a Direct Cause, So Both Are Guilty Under Section 291 คำพิพากษาฎีกาที่ 1326/2510: ต่างฝ่ายต่างประมาท การชนเป็นผลโดยตรงจากความประมาทของทั้งสอง จึงผิดด้วยกันทั้งคู่

SUPREME COURT DECISION No. 1326/2510
Year: 1967 (B.E. 2510)
Relevant Code Sections: Criminal Code, Section 291

SUMMARY
Two vehicles collided at a junction and people were killed and injured. The first defendant was driving above the legal speed limit; the second failed to give way to the first, who was going straight through. The Supreme Court applied a but-for test to each defendant separately and both were satisfied: had the first not been speeding there would have been no collision, and had the second waited there would have been no collision either. The collision was therefore the direct result of the negligence of both, and both were guilty under Section 291. Neither could rely on the other's negligence as an answer. This is not contributory negligence, which is a civil doctrine that reduces what a claimant recovers and has no application here.

FACTS OF THE CASE
Two drivers collided at a junction, killing one person and injuring others. The prosecution charged both with driving negligently so as to cause the collision. Both denied the charge. The Court of First Instance sentenced each to four years, the Court of Appeal affirmed, and both defendants appealed on a question of law. The facts found below were that the first defendant exceeded the legal speed limit and the second failed to give way to the first, who had the straight-through course.

COURT'S HOLDING
Had the first defendant not driven faster than the speed the law allows, the vehicles would not have collided. Had the second defendant waited for the first, who was coming straight through, to pass, they would not have collided either. The collision was therefore the direct result of the negligence of both defendants in failing to comply with the rules laid down by law, and both are guilty.

LEGAL ANALYSIS
Contributory negligence in the civil sense reduces what a claimant recovers. Nothing of that kind happens here. Both drivers were convicted, and the point of the case is that the negligence of the other was no answer for either of them.

The Court applied a but for test to each defendant separately and both tests were satisfied at once. If the first defendant had not exceeded the legal speed limit the vehicles would not have collided. If the second defendant had waited for the first, who was travelling straight through, to pass, they would not have collided either. The collision was therefore the direct result of the negligence of both, and both were guilty.

What made each of them negligent was the breach of a traffic rule, speeding in the one case and failing to give way in the other. Section 291 asks only for a negligent act that is the direct cause of death, so once a defendant's own breach is a direct cause the offence is complete against him, whatever anyone else did. Criminal negligence is not apportioned between the parties the way civil damages are.

The appeal reached the Supreme Court on a question of law alone, so the facts found below were fixed, and the sentence of four years on each defendant was affirmed.

PRACTICAL NOTE
Section 291 is made out against each defendant separately. Where two people are negligent in the same incident, neither can rely on the other's negligence as a defence, because the question is whether that defendant's own breach was a direct cause of the death. Preserve the material that goes to causation, the speed, the road layout, the right of way and the sequence of events, rather than material directed at intent, which this section does not require.