Employer Liability for Employee’s Reckless Conduct and Fraudulent Agreement
Company A, Head Office, in this instance, Company A employed Mr. Khon to be a driver. Mr. Khon was habitually intoxicated while on duty, frequently causing vehicle accidents. However, Company A did not terminate his employment due to the belief that Mr. Khon deviated from the designated route to visit and consume alcohol. One day, after delivering goods at the railway station, Mr. Khon went to his friend’s house and, upon returning to Company A, drove into a vehicle collision. Subsequently, both parties proceeded to the police station to negotiate. Mr. Chote, acting as the Company A manager, and Mr. Khon admitted liability and agreed to compensate for damages. However, Mr. Khon did not have cash on hand at the time. Consequently, Mr. Chote fabricated a claim. Both parties requested the police investigator to prepare a preliminary record.
Officer 46 prepared a record with Mr. Khon and Mr. Chote signing the statement: “Mr. Khon agrees to pay the damages as demanded by Mr. Chote, in the amount of 10,000 baht, within two days. If the parties fail to comply, they will pursue legal action against each other in civil court.” Mr. Khon drove recklessly and was released. It is requested to determine whether Mr. Chote can seek liability from anyone. The act of Mr. Khon constituted a breach of contract and was a breach of his employment (referring to Judgment of the Supreme Court Case No. 1653/2523). Company A, the employer, must also be held liable (Judgment of the Supreme Court Case No. 425). The subsequent agreement between Mr. Khon and Mr. Chote constituted a waiver under Section 850. However, Mr. Khon falsely represented himself as the Company A manager, leading Mr. Chote to believe and comply with the agreement, rendering the agreement void under Section 120. Mr. Chote has the right to void the agreement. Both parties are jointly liable for breach of contract, not voiding the agreement. Mr. Chote has the right to seek liability from Mr. Khon as a party to the contract, provided that Mr. Khon fulfills the terms of the conciliation agreement. (Referring to Judgment of the Supreme Court Case No. 2248).