| الملخص: | As a consumer, examining product safety is complicated and it is likely that the consumer may use goods that can cause harm to life, body, health, hygiene, mental health or assets of themselves or even others. When damages occur, it is acceptable that the damages by obvious causes and evidence can be indicated by monetary values. However, the damages that cause damage to mental health which cannot be estimated into monetary value seems problematic in legal consideration.Therefore, this research aims 1.To investigate the definition, history, and relevant concepts, 2. Compare between Thai and foreign laws, 3. analyse existing problems regarding mental damage, and 4. suggest views on the legislation of mental damage. This qualitative research employed documentary research methods to collect data from relevant legal literature. The results are presented in descriptive analysis. The results of the study claimed that the liability from damage arising from unsafe products act has recently legislated against rule of law in claiming compensation from the perpetrator as according to the civil law. As mentioned in the article 11 of that said act, besides the injured person, their stakeholders including of spouses, parents, or heirs can claim the compensation for mental damages in case of the death of the injured person. The oretically, these stakeholders have been in jured mentally; therefore, it is right to demand the compensation for their mental damages from the perpetrator. This article would be against the existing principle to claim compensation in a civil case. It prescribes that mental compensation is strictly specifically reserved for the injured person to claim; in this case the researcher agrees that the injured person deserves the right to be compensated and redress. Nevertheless, mental claim is conceptual and personal; therefore, allowing the stakeholders to claim for such mental compensation may cause the perpetrator to have more liability from the damages that cannot be proved particularly. Specifying compensation in a case of civil law including of the supreme court judgement demanded strict mental compensation for the injured person only. Moreover, it is important to bear in mind that the principles of compensation may not constitute injustice more than actual damage caused by the perpetrator to pay the compensation.
|
|---|
