1,500,000THB in total?
What's a joke.

The cheapest ever travel insurance in Europe provides 30,000USD pay out in case of death, most provides smth.like 70,000-120,000USD.

And who pays now for medical care of passengers, and compensate them moral damages, which they all certainly incured?

1,500,000THB is a revenue of few days from SeaStar boats they operates.

TripAdvisor is full of older reviews where lack of life jackets, absence of safety briefings and careless piloting are clearly mentioned, that points to a systematic character of such wrongdoings.

It is a task of the management to provide that proper procedures are installed and that they are followed, and the management clearly failed here.

Posted by Sue on October 28, 2014 14:19

The IMO (International Maririme Organisation)to which Thailand is a signatory states that Life Jackets or PFD's as they are now called must be either Solas, British Safety Association or US Coast Guard approved. That is the standard. They cost a lot more than 400 or so THB so that won't happen and the tourists will still be left with cheap sub standard life jackets.

Posted by Anonymous on October 28, 2014 14:52

Companies who only can rip off tourist but claim not being able to supply with standard life jackets, should not be allowed to operate.

Posted by Resident on October 28, 2014 15:08

The last time we went to Ko Samui the main life rafts on the top deck of the passenger/car ferry we travelled on were 2 years overdue for a safety inspection, no mention of life jackets and I did not see any on the boat, that was 3 years ago hopefully they have been inspected by now

Posted by Peter Allen on October 28, 2014 17:04

Sue,
Isn't 1.5m Baht about $45,000usd or 50% greater than the minimum EU death payout stated?
In any case, their ability to claim damages will depend on whether of not a contract or partial waiver was sign with the company. If such an agreement was signed, compensation will be limited and should be upheld by any court.
If such an agreement does not exist, the means to obtain compensation will be determined by civil law delict for negligent breach of duty of care causing loss or harm.
This is separate from any criminal law charge or awarding of punitive damages which are a deterrent or intended to reform the accused from engaging in similar conduct. Where compensatory damages are considered inadequate, it is possible that some portion of punitive damages may be awarded to a plaintiff for any inadequate or under compensation.
Compensation law differs greatly in most countries as does the process to obtain it. It may be in a single combined case for simplicity or require separate criminal and civil cases.

Posted by Manowar on October 28, 2014 17:38

Sorry but still having problems which ios8.2 did not fix.
A contract or waiver may be in the form of conditions of travel on the back of a ticket or listed on a notice board under which a person who purchases a ticket agrees to automatically.
For this type of agreement to be valid it must be proven to have been understood by the purchaser and either written in their language or translated to them. A contract cannot be enforced where one party is disadvantaged and proven not to understand the terms or conditions that have been agreed.

Posted by Manowar on October 28, 2014 18:05

@Manowar

There are 2 dead and number of injured. 30,000$ it was per one dead, it is not statutory limit, it's contractual , from experience what I ever saw in travel policies in Europe.
BTW what TAT offers for travelers who can't buy insurance is non-sense: there few options for policies , the one that offers biggest coverage of just 30,000$ in case of death, costs - hold a breath - 12kTHB+ ...

AFAIK in most cases gross negligence liability can't be capped , as gross negligence is in most cases deemed equal to malicious intent, and for the latter all indemnities are void.
In addition, liability in tort that concern consumer goods and services general safety can't be capped or indemnitified. Don't know details in this respect about Thailand, as consumer claims that I've processed here were about softer matters.
But in general to my knowledge (latest what I took a look at was in 2013) the EU, USA, and to some extent Australia follows the similar line as I described above; laws in regard of liability in tort on general consumer goods and services safety have became very similar in these countries during last years.

Posted by Sue on October 28, 2014 19:18

@Manowar
The Kingdom has adopted specific consumer safety liability law (Liability For Damage Arising from Unsafe Products Act 2008) but only in regard of goods, not services - obviously a result of lacking a functional and stable government for years, most countries passed this milestones few tens ago
Consumer services safety is required under Consumer Protection Act, and it enforceable under it and Civil and Commercial Code provisions.
For consumers claims there is specific procedure, that shifts a burden of proof onto a business, in addition as well as a matter of exception provides for "inquisitorial doctrines" that judiciary is not a neutral observer but actively seeks evidence, and some other provisions that facilitates consumers access to justice.
CCC sec.420 equalizes , as expected, gross negligence and malicious intent.
Thailand has a concept of unfair consumer contract clauses (Unfair Contract Terms Act), there is special law on that - that is taken over from the EU, and which is based on the concept of good faith ( that is absent in common law), and that consumer is a weaker party - effectively it in most cases make various parts kinds of clauses of consumer contracts void, among them reducing of business's liability in tort/contract breach.
However there may be some specific law on capping liability in transportation services etc.
In general it seems that business's" liability in tort" on safety of services rendered to consumers can't be capped or indemnified.
Not perfect translations of statutes are available e.g. on samuiforsale .

Posted by Sue on October 28, 2014 20:17

Sue,
Thailand does not follow a system of common law which is basically case law or precedence law requiring any decision to match the interpretation by previous ruling.
The remedy for a civil claim is to establish the damage caused to a person to enable them to be placed, as far as possible, in the same position they were prior to the event causing the claim. If damage is permanent, an amount may be awarded for future losses but this is hard to accurately determine and is no more than an estimation.
Of cause liability is capped. Every insurance policy or contract will specify limits of liability. Consumer or product liability law will limit exposure to a claim generally to the value of the product, replacement or refund. It is just a simple form of civil law to protect consumers and resolve issues which would otherwise unnecessarily waste the time of courts.
Damage resulting from a faulty product is a civil claim and normally excluded from a consumer claim remedy.
A travellers insurance policy and the liability of a service provider are two completely different contracts. The former is purchased by the consumer as protection and the latter is provided by seller of a product to cover his potential liability. His liability will vary from zero for an event beyond his control up to the maximum amount agreed in any policy.
The maximum may refer to any one event, any single claim or the total of all claims

Posted by Manowar on October 29, 2014 03:14

Sue,
Business liability is always capped to the value of insurance plus the company's asset value. The reason why maximum liability is not stated is because it's impossible to creat a law to cover each and every business situation and the business's value.
A person conducts a business under a company structure purely to limit the liablity of the company's activity to the value of the company and remove the chance of personal assets from being claimed.

The company's assets are protected by insurance, the value determined by owners or directors to cover any foreseeable claim. The insurance policy will have a limit of liability payable to any claim against the company. A claim exceeding this value will be enforceable against the company's assets.
An award of compensation, while not limited under law, is limited to the value of the company and insurance to cover such event. If there is no more money or funds available, you can claim it but you can't receive money that does not exist.
The larger the business value or wealth, the greater the potential to be able to cover a higher award for damages.

Posted by Manowar on October 29, 2014 03:58