Reckless Driving Liability for Fatal School Bus Collision
Article 8
Mr. Dam was an employee of Mr. Ang, who routinely placed orders with Mr. Dam for merchandise delivered to customers. Mr. Ang had consistently instructed all drivers, including Mr. Dam, to use only Main Road for deliveries, prohibiting entry onto Side Street. Any deviation from this instruction constituted a breach of contract. Subsequently, on September 7th, Mr. Ang instructed Mr. Dam to deliver 2545 items of merchandise to customers, intending to complete the delivery within that day. After delivering two items, Mr. Dam determined that using Main Road would prevent the completion of all 2545 deliveries. Therefore, Mr. Dam drove onto Side Street, a shortcut, for a short distance. While traveling, Mr. Dam accelerated and overtook a school bus traveling in the opposite lane, crossing into the opposing lane before colliding with the school bus. The bus was carrying two children, Nung and Ball, who were passengers on the school bus and tragically died. Mr. Me, the father of Nung and Ball, was the legal guardian of both children. Nung was born to Ms. Naphpha, a woman who was not legally married, and Ms. Naphpha has since passed away. Mr. Me has provided care and support for Nung since her birth. Ball was born from Ms. Sririnya, who was legally married and subsequently passed away. Mr. Me had designated Ball as Mr. Dam’s adopted son, registering him as an adopted son as follows: It is requested that the court determine whether Mr. Me can demand compensation and support from Mr. Dam and Mr. Ang. Why?
The court’s answer: Mr. Dam drove recklessly, causing damage. Therefore, Mr. Dam is liable to pay damages under the Civil and Commercial Code: Section 42, transporting goods into Side Street, which constitutes a breach of contract and agreement with Mr. Ang. Mr. Dam’s driving onto Side Street, along with excessive speed, prevented him from fulfilling his assigned delivery obligations to Mr. Ang, his employer. This constitutes a breach of contract by Mr. Ang, his employer, and Mr. Dam is therefore jointly liable with Mr. Dam under the Civil and Commercial Code (4 points).
A person entitled to claim funeral expenses under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 443, must be a descendant of the person who suffered the breach of contract and died. Funeral expenses are the responsibility of the descendant under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1649. The person entitled to claim support must have been provided with support and upbringing by the deceased. For illegitimate children, there is generally no right or responsibility to the parent. Unless otherwise provided for under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 16. Mr. Me provided support and upbringing to Nung throughout her life, which constitutes a recognition that Mr. Me accepted Nung as his child, which has only resulted in Nung having the right to inherit from Mr. Me, but not legally binding Mr. Me to have any rights or responsibilities towards Nung, his illegitimate child. Therefore, Mr. Me can jointly demand that Mr. Dam and Mr. Ang pay funeral expenses and support for the loss of Nung due to her death. (3 points)
Regarding Ball, although Mr. Me had designated him as Mr. Dam’s adopted son through registration according to law, this did not create the family relationship that had been established (Civil and Commercial Code, Section ). Mr. Me remains Ball’s heir and is entitled to receive support and upbringing from Ball. Therefore, Mr. Me has the right to demand that Mr. Dam and Mr. Ang jointly pay funeral expenses and support for the loss of Ball due to his death. (3 points)