Section 425 — Employer joint liability for employee tort
Statutory text (Thai original)
นายจ้างต้องร่วมกันรับผิดกับลูกจ้างในผลแห่งละเมิดซึ่งลูกจ้างได้กระทำไปในทางการที่จ้างนั้น
Verbatim from the Royal Gazette / Office of the Council of State
คำแปลภาษาอังกฤษ
An employer is jointly liable with his employee for the consequences of a wrongful act committed by such an employee in the course of his employment.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 425 imposes joint and several liability without fault on the employer. Plaintiffs prefer to sue both because employers have deeper pockets and insurance. Two recurring questions: (1) was the act "in the course of employment" or a personal frolic? — courts read this broadly when the act was foreseeable from the job duties (e.g. driver causing accident on delivery route = in course; same driver later getting drunk and brawling = personal frolic); (2) the employer's recovery from the employee under §426 is theoretically available but rarely worth pursuing in practice. SC decision 2794/2565 is the leading recent authority confirming the broad reach of §425 in delivery and ride-share contexts.
Why this matters in practice
Lawyers: The key test is whether the employee was acting 'in the course of employment' — not merely whether the act occurred during working hours. Courts look at whether the employer authorised or implicitly permitted the activity. Apparent authority (employer's conduct holding out the employee as authorised) can extend section 425 liability even outside formal duty hours. The employer may seek indemnity from the employee under section 426. Laypersons: If a company's employee harms you while doing their job, you can sue both the employee and the employer. You do not need to pursue only the employee.
Legislative history
Part of the original Civil and Commercial Code codification; no major subsequent amendment.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 15199/2558 (2015)
An employer is jointly liable under section 425 for an employee's road accident in the course of employment; a limited partner who publicly acts as employer loses limited-liability protection.
Defendant 6 (employee of defendant 4) drove a cargo truck in the course of defendant 4's business and caused an accident. Defendant 4 as employer was jointly liable under section 425. Defendant 3, as managing partner, was unlimited jointly liable under the Partnership Act. Defendant 2, a limited partner who had publicly represented himself as an employer of defendant 6 and negotiated damages on behalf of the partnership, lost the benefit of limited liability and was jointly liable as well.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 14931/2557 (2014)
Where employees negligently store vault access credentials in breach of the employer's own security rules, enabling theft from a customer's safe-deposit box, the employer is vicariously liable under section 425.
Bank employees responsible for safekeeping safe-deposit vault codes and keys stored them negligently in unlocked desk drawers contrary to the bank's own regulations, enabling burglars to access and steal the plaintiff's property from the safe-deposit box. The Court held the employees' negligence was committed in the course of their employment duties; the bank as employer was jointly and severally liable under section 425.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 7829/2553 (2010)
Assigning a government employee full ongoing responsibility for an official vehicle constitutes implicit authorisation to use it at any time; an accident caused while using the vehicle in that capacity falls within the employer's section 425 liability.
A Sub-district Administrative Organisation (SAO) assigned its permanent secretary full responsibility for a vehicle. The secretary used the vehicle during what was technically after office hours to drive home, instructing defendant 1 to drive. The Court held that the SAO's assignment of full vehicle responsibility to the secretary meant the secretary — and through him the SAO — had implicit authority to use the vehicle at any time; defendant 1's negligent driving during that trip was therefore 'in the course of employment' of the SAO, which was jointly liable under section 425.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.