COMMENTARY
ALFRED THA HLA
Five years ago fate's cruel hand paid 15,000 baht to Nanthawat Rojvorakulnithi in exchange for a lifetime in a wheelchair.
That's the traditional cum cosmological explanation based on an individual's karma.
But as the good doctor Tairjing Siripanich of the Don't Drive Drunk Foundation once told me, fate or pre-destined events sanctioned within the realm of karma have nothing to do with it.
The 15,000-baht payout was compulsory insurance and the real culprit was a sudden lane change by a car in front of Nanthawat's motorcycle; resulting in horrific injuries that saw his left leg severed instantly, pelvis shattered, left arm paralysed and a brain swollen with fluid build-up.
On the other side of the ocean in Colorado, USA, single mother Lezli was awarded 70 million baht in compensation on Nov 17, 2005 for injuries sustained in an accident caused by a drunk driver.
It's not a desperate quest for equality, but comparing compulsory liabilities in Thailand against punitive and compensatory settlements awarded in US courts is a nasty Darwinian process that belittles the value of human life.
Lezli was given an amount 4,666 times more than what Nanthawat got from mandatory compulsory insurance.
Nanthawat even upped the ante with his left leg and a lifetime in a wheelchair. But the value of human life seems to take on a new meaning once you cross time zones.
According to Mothers Against Drunk Driving (Madd), 16,694 people were killed in 2004 in alcohol-related crashes in the US, averaging out to about 320 fatalities a week.
Thailand exceeds 400 corpses at week-long festivities such as Songkran and New Year celebrations.
Victims Against Drunk Driving (Vadd) president Pattaraphand Krissana said that compensation from compulsory insurance is not enough and is something that Thai society chooses to ignore.
Pattaraphand, himself a paraplegic since 1991 after a drunk driver swerved a 10-wheel truck into his driveline, said that most victims lack the legal knowledge and opt for a cash settlement of 300,000-400,000 baht instead of an amount that justifies the injuries sustained.
It's an uphill battle since most lawyers in Thailand don't believe in pro bono (free) legal services. And it'll be five to six years before victims see any sort of settlement based on obstacles such as lengthy appeals and dark influence from the powers-that-be.
And should the case reach the Supreme Court, pending the conviction of the offender or defendant, the latter could file for bankruptcy and that's all she wrote, so to speak.
Compulsory insurance in Thailand costs about 752 baht a year for a passenger car, 1,074 for a pick-up truck and 1,289 for a van according to the Insurance Department. Maximum coverage is 50,000 baht for personal injury caused to a third party and 100,000 baht in case of death. If injured by the driver's own carelessness, the payout is 15,000 baht for personal injury and 35,000 baht for loss of life.
A steel brace for Nanthawat's pelvis already costs 30,000 baht!
Average insurance expenditure per year in, say, the state of Illinois, is about 25,600 baht (US$760), according to 2005 statistics compiled by the Insurance Information Institution. Compulsory or liability insurance constituted an average of 13,800 baht ($410).
In a nutshell the state of Illinois entitles a person to a limit of about 675,000 baht ($20,000), 1.5 million baht ($40,000) for all persons involved in the accident, and another 506,000 baht ($15,000) for property damage.
The local insurance industry isn't about to grow a conscience between its ears since a different set of standards apply for Thailand.
Some might remember the "McDonald's coffee case" in 1994 when a 79-year-old woman spilt hot coffee between her thighs and was awarded compensatory and punitive damages of about 21.5 million baht ($640,000) before settling out of court.
The aforementioned case of frivolous litigation wouldn't see the light of day here.
Thai laws and judges are more conservative, tend to overlook the issue of compensation for mental anguish and maintain that plaintiffs cannot profit from accidents; in addition, our civil and commercial codes view the gravity of such cases with a different mindset.
What victims really need is a special fund established through the support of the business community.
This fund should be supplemented by drunk-driving fines carrying heavy financial penalties.
As well, a meaningful percentage of the offender's salary should be allocated to the victims or their kin (like forever).
At least this fund would get the ball rolling while a victims' insurance money is tossed up in a tsunami of paperwork.
And at the end of the day, if corporate powerhouses from, say, automotive, alcohol and insurance sectors lend their support to this fund - Thai society will be able to determine the legitimacy of true corporate citizens.
Alfred Tha Hla is with the Motoring section of the Bangkok Post.
Prev
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Next
