When the levee was damaged, the Defendant had performed the duties as required by the law by notifying the contractor of repairing the damaged part of such levee; meanwhile, the Defendant also hired a backhoe truck to rectify the drainage ditch thereof. However, when the levee was more seriously damaged and there was a large amount of water in such levee, it might cause the levee to be irresistible the water force. If the Defendant waited the contractor repairing or adjusting the levee completely, it would be unable to solve the problem in time and would cause such levee collapsing. The Defendant therefore proceeded to primarily rectify by digging the drainage ditch in order to drain water out from the levee; nevertheless, such levee had still collapsed. It was deemed that the Defendant did not willfully or negligently act against another person in violation of law resulting in the injury against his or her property, which would be a tort pursuant to Section 420 of Civil and Commercial Code. Nonetheless, such performances of the Defendant resulted in the damages to the six Plaintiffs; it was considered as the case of other liability that required the Defendant to be liable for the compensation for such.
ศาลปกครอง
วิชาการ
สืบค้นข้อมูล
ประชาสัมพันธ์
บริการประชาชน