Section 425 — Employer joint liability for employee tort

Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section

1. 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.

   Read the full decision (deka.in.th)

2. 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.

   Read the full decision (deka.in.th)

3. 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.

   Read the full decision (deka.in.th)

Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.