Punitive Damages in Environmental Cases

Abstract

This study aims to investigate the problem of assessing damages in environmental litigation under Thai law, in accordance with the National Environment Quality Promotion and Preservation Act B.E.1992 and the Civil and Commercial Code, alongside principles, concepts, and theories relating to punitive damages applied in environmental law offenses. This study is conducted through comprehensive documentary research, which involves sourcing relevant materials from books, articles, and court judgments, and documenting this information in electronic form. Additionally, it delves into academic documents, Thai laws and foreign laws. This involves a comparative analysis of punitive damages assessment in environmental lawsuits under Thai law versus foreign laws specifically in the United States. This is a country that places significant emphasis on environmental protection, with a dedicated Environmental Protection Agency authorized to address such matters proactively. This agency is responsible for addressing various problems, including the enforcement of punitive damages, which are determined at the discretion of a jury under court supervision. Furthermore, specific criteria have been established to guide the application of various punitive damages. The aim is to scrutinize issues in Thai law, particularly those related to the National Environment Quality Promotion and Preservation Act B.E. 1992 and the Civil and Commercial Code, in terms of determining compensatory damages in environmental offense cases.

The study revealed that The National Environmental Quality Promotion and Preservation Act of 1992 solely outlines liability but does not provide specific criteria for assessing damages. Consequently, the determination of damages in environmental cases relies on the principles of tort law. However, the tort law principles within the Thai Civil and Commercial Code prove inadequate for application in environmental cases. This inadequacy arises due to the distinctive characteristics that differentiate environmental cases from general infringement cases, notably in terms of the burden of proof, the nature of the damage, and the duration of the damage. This often leads to an inadequate payment obligation for the offender in environmental cases, which fails to match the actual harm inflicted. This study suggests that the concept of punitive damages should be introduced to augment the remedial damages that a polluter must bear, extending beyond the compensation required for actual damages. This approach would serve as a deterrent to environmentally harmful activities, heighten awareness of potential damages, it is imperative to establish legal principles that empower courts to award punitive damages in environmental law cases. This would enable the courts to effectively apply these principles and, in turn, benefit the general public by ensuring that victims of environmental harm receive fair and equitable compensation.