Main Article Content
The problem of medical malpractice litigation has become increasingly important in Thailand. Defendant-doctors may potentially face criminal and civil liability, and a large sum of damages. In civil cases, claimant-patients commonly rely on Section 420 of the Civil and Commercial Code for the compensation for injury caused by the alleged negligent act of the defendant-doctor. This research conducts a comparative study of Thai law in this area, based on the analysis of Section 420, and the standard of care in tort of negligence in the USA.
The comparative study reveals differences in the components of liability for negligence, factors of considerations and standards in determining whether an act was a negligent act. If Thailand is to improve the law in this area, it is recommended that Thailand considers, firstly, the distinction between generalist and specialist doctors, as adopted in the majority of the states in the USA, whereby specialist doctors are held to a higher standard of care than generalist doctors. On the contrary, generalist doctors should not be held to the standard of specialist doctors unless he voluntarily performs specialised medical treatments. Moreover, in determining whether an act of the defendant-doctor is negligent, causing injury to the patient, Thailand should consider the approach in the USA, which gives appropriate weight to the particular circumstances of the case, and which has adopted evidentiary rules regarding expert witness testimony. The main strength of such approach is to ensure the reliability of expert witness testimony in order to maintain a suitable standard in the determination of civil liability in medical malpractice context.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The copyright in this website and the material on this website (including without limitation the text, computer code, artwork, photographs, images, music, audio material, video material and audio-visual material on this website) is owned by Chulalongkorn Law Journal and its licensors.
1. Chulalongkorn Law Journal grants to you a worldwide non-exclusive royalty-free revocable license to:
- view this website and the material on this website on a computer or mobile device via a web browser;
- copy and store this website and the material on this website in your web browser cache memory; and
- print pages from this website for your use.
- All articles published by Chulalongkorn Law Journal are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. This permits anyone to copy, redistribute, remix, transmit and adapt the work provided the original work and source is appropriately cited.
2. Chulalongkorn Law Journal does not grant you any other rights in relation to this website or the material on this website. In other words, all other rights are reserved. For the avoidance of doubt, you must not adapt, edit, change, transform, publish, republish, distribute, redistribute, broadcast, rebroadcast or show or play in public this website or the material on this website (in any form or media) without appropriately and conspicuously citing the original work and source or Chulalongkorn Law Journal prior written permission.
3. You may request permission to use the copyright materials on this website by writing to email@example.com.
4. Chulalongkorn Law Journal takes the protection of its copyright very seriously. If Chulalongkorn Law Journal discovers that you have used its copyright materials in contravention of the license above, Chulalongkorn Law Journal may bring legal proceedings against you seeking monetary damages and an injunction to stop you using those materials. You could also be ordered to pay legal costs.
If you become aware of any use of Chulalongkorn Law Journal's copyright materials that contravenes or may contravene the license above or any material on the website that you believe infringes your or any other person's copyright, please report this by email to firstname.lastname@example.org.