1. Introduction

Autonomous Freight Transport Litigation in Thailand concerns civil disputes arising from the use of artificial intelligence (AI), autonomous trucks, driverless logistics vehicles, connected transportation systems, automated cargo-handling technologies, and algorithmically controlled freight networks.

Autonomous freight transport refers to the movement of commercial goods through vehicles that perform some or all driving functions without continuous human control. These vehicles may use:

Artificial intelligence and machine-learning systems.

GPS, sensors, cameras, and radar.

Automated braking and collision-avoidance technology.

Vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure communication.

Smart logistics and automated dispatch platforms.

Blockchain-based cargo documentation.

Predictive maintenance and automated fleet management.

Thailand's legal framework must address the relationship between traditional road-transport liability, contractual obligations, product defects, negligence, insurance, electronic transactions, and emerging autonomous-vehicle risks.

The central legal question is:

Who is legally responsible when an autonomous freight vehicle causes an accident, damages cargo, delays delivery, or produces financial loss through an automated decision?

Potentially responsible parties include the vehicle owner, freight operator, manufacturer, software developer, maintenance contractor, logistics platform, cargo owner, and insurer.

An important qualification is that Thailand does not have a substantial body of reported judgments specifically deciding civil liability for fully autonomous freight trucks. Therefore, the cases discussed below are relevant Thai precedents and comparative authorities applying established legal principles; they should not be represented as judgments directly concerning autonomous freight vehicles.

2. Legal framework governing autonomous freight transport in Thailand

A. Civil and Commercial Code

The Thai Civil and Commercial Code (CCC) provides the principal foundation for private-law liability.

Section 420 – General tort liability

A person who wilfully or negligently unlawfully injures another person's life, body, health, liberty, property, or rights must compensate the injured person.

This provision is particularly important in autonomous freight accidents.

For example, if an autonomous truck fails to recognize a pedestrian because of defective object-detection software, the injured person may pursue a negligence claim against an operator or another legally responsible party.

Potential grounds include:

Negligent vehicle supervision.

Failure to maintain autonomous systems.

Failure to update safety software.

Inadequate emergency-response arrangements.

Failure to comply with applicable road-safety requirements.

Sections 425–430 – Employer and related liability

These provisions establish important rules concerning employer responsibility, employee conduct, and certain relationships involving persons under supervision.

A freight company may face liability where an employee's wrongful conduct occurs in the course of employment.

The autonomous nature of the vehicle does not automatically eliminate an employer's responsibility for negligent deployment, supervision, or operation.

Sections 472–474 – Defective property sold

These provisions concern a seller's liability for defects in property sold.

Where an autonomous freight vehicle contains defects affecting its safety or functionality, contractual remedies may arise against the seller, subject to the applicable statutory conditions and exceptions.

Sections 587 onwards – Hire of work

The hire-of-work provisions may become relevant where logistics services, vehicle maintenance, software integration, or automated transportation infrastructure are supplied under contractual arrangements.

The precise contractual classification depends on the parties' obligations and the nature of the service.

B. Road Traffic Act B.E. 2522 (1979)

The Road Traffic Act regulates road use, traffic conduct, vehicle operation, and road safety.

Autonomous freight vehicles create difficult questions concerning:

Compliance with road-traffic requirements.

Responsibility for automated driving decisions.

Human supervision and intervention.

Safety of commercial vehicles.

Accident reporting and evidence preservation.

An autonomous driving system cannot simply be assumed to replace the legal responsibilities imposed on vehicle owners, operators, or persons controlling road vehicles.

C. Land Transport Act B.E. 2522 (1979)

The Land Transport Act is relevant to commercial freight operations, vehicle licensing, transport operators, and regulatory supervision.

Autonomous freight operators must consider the applicable requirements governing commercial transportation, vehicle authorization, and transport safety.

D. Product Liability Act B.E. 2551 (2008)

The Liability for Damages Arising from Unsafe Products Act B.E. 2551 is especially important.

It establishes a special liability regime for damage caused by unsafe products.

Relevant concepts include:

Manufacturing defects.

Design defects.

Inadequate warnings.

Unsafe product characteristics.

Liability of legally defined business operators.

Compensation for qualifying damage.

An autonomous truck containing a defective sensor, braking mechanism, navigation component, or safety-critical software may raise product-liability questions.

The application of the Act to particular software products and integrated autonomous systems depends on the statutory definition of a product, the circumstances of supply, and the nature of the alleged defect.

E. Electronic Transactions Act B.E. 2544 (2001)

The Electronic Transactions Act recognizes electronic transactions and electronic records under its applicable conditions.

It is relevant to:

Electronic freight contracts.

Automated dispatch instructions.

Digital delivery confirmations.

Electronic bills of lading and transport documentation.

Machine-generated records.

Electronic signatures.

The Act can help establish the legal significance of electronic evidence generated by autonomous logistics systems.

F. Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019)

Autonomous freight vehicles may collect personal data through cameras, GPS systems, driver-monitoring technology, and connected logistics platforms.

The Personal Data Protection Act becomes relevant when such information identifies or can identify individuals.

Unlawful collection, disclosure, retention, or processing may generate separate legal and regulatory disputes.

3. Special liability under Section 437: Autonomous freight vehicles as dangerous mechanical vehicles

Section 437 of the Thai Civil and Commercial Code is particularly significant for autonomous freight transport.

It provides that a person possessing or controlling a mechanically powered vehicle is liable for damage caused by that vehicle, unless the person proves that the damage resulted from force majeure or the injured person's own fault.

This creates an important distinction between conventional negligence and liability arising from the dangerous nature of a mechanically powered vehicle.

Application to autonomous trucks

Suppose an autonomous freight truck is travelling from Bangkok to Chiang Mai. Its artificial intelligence system incorrectly identifies a stationary vehicle as an obstacle and suddenly changes lanes, causing a collision.

The injured party may argue that:

The truck was a mechanically powered vehicle.

The defendant possessed or controlled it.

The damage resulted from the vehicle.

The defendant has not established a statutory defence.

The central difficulty is identifying who possessed or controlled the vehicle when the autonomous system was driving.

Possible defendants include:

The freight operator controlling the fleet.

The company operating the autonomous vehicle.

A person exercising actual operational control.

Other parties whose independent negligence contributed to the accident.

A manufacturer or software developer is not automatically liable under Section 437 merely because it created the technology. Their liability must be examined under the applicable tort, product-liability, and contractual rules.

Important distinction: Section 437 is not a universal strict-liability provision covering every participant in an autonomous transport chain. The claimant must establish the statutory relationship between the defendant, the vehicle, and the damage.

4. Carrier liability under Sections 616–618

The transportation provisions of the CCC are central to autonomous freight disputes.

Section 616 – Liability for loss, damage and delay

A carrier is responsible for loss, damage, or delay in delivering goods entrusted to it, unless it establishes an applicable statutory exception, including force majeure, the nature of the goods, or the fault of the sender or consignee.

For autonomous freight transport, this provision covers:

Cargo damaged by an autonomous collision.

Goods lost because of an automated routing error.

Delayed deliveries caused by system malfunction.

Cargo destroyed by autonomous braking failure.

Incorrect delivery to an unauthorized location.

The carrier cannot ordinarily escape its contractual responsibility merely by arguing that an AI system made the decision.

Section 617 – Responsibility for other persons involved in carriage

A carrier may remain responsible for loss, damage, or delay caused by another carrier or person entrusted with the goods.

This becomes important when freight transportation involves subcontractors, autonomous vehicle operators, remote-control centres, and third-party logistics providers.

Section 618 – Multiple carriers

Where goods are transported by several carriers, the Code provides for joint liability in the circumstances covered by the provision.

This is relevant to multi-stage autonomous freight journeys involving several transportation companies.

Section 625 – Contractual exclusions and limitations

A carrier's contractual exclusion or limitation of liability must be examined under Section 625.

A carrier cannot freely use standard-form terms to avoid statutory responsibility. A clause attempting to exclude or limit liability contrary to the applicable statutory restrictions may be ineffective.

For example, a logistics company cannot necessarily avoid responsibility by inserting a provision stating that all losses caused by autonomous vehicle software are exclusively the customer's responsibility.

5. Six or more important judicial decisions and their relevance

The following Thai Supreme Court decisions provide useful legal foundations for autonomous freight litigation. They concern conventional transport and vehicle disputes, but their principles can be applied to emerging autonomous transportation cases.

Case 1: Supreme Court Decision No. 7995/2538

Subject: Carrier liability for damaged goods and burden of proof

The case involved a tractor-trailer carrying goods that overturned while travelling along a descending curved road.

The carrier argued that the accident resulted from circumstances beyond its control.

The Supreme Court rejected the force-majeure argument and held the carrier responsible for the damaged goods under Section 616.

The Court also addressed the burden of proof, holding that the carrier had to establish the facts supporting its statutory defence.

Legal principles:

Carriers are responsible for goods entrusted to them.

Ordinary transportation risks do not automatically constitute force majeure.

The carrier bears the burden of proving an applicable exception under Section 616.

Contractual limitations must be properly raised in the proceedings.

Relevance to autonomous freight:

A freight company cannot simply claim that an AI navigation error, sensor failure, or autonomous braking malfunction was an unavoidable event. It must establish a legally recognized defence.

Case 2: Supreme Court Decision No. 10288/2559

Subject: Subcontracted transportation and contractual liability

This decision concerned a transportation company that engaged an outside truck operator to transport goods from Bang Phli, Samut Prakan, to Ubon Ratchathani.

The truck overturned during transportation, resulting in damage to the goods.

The Supreme Court examined the contractual claim under Section 616 and the nature of the pleaded cause of action.

An important procedural finding was that the claim was based on the defendant's contractual responsibility as a carrier, rather than an independent tort claim.

Legal principles:

The legal basis of a transport claim must be properly identified.

Carrier liability and tort liability are distinct legal grounds.

Evidence of the goods entrusted to the carrier and the resulting loss is essential.

A claimant must establish the actual loss claimed.

Relevance to autonomous freight:

If an autonomous freight company subcontracts transportation to another operator, the claimant should carefully identify the contractual carrier and the parties responsible for the damaged goods.

The case also demonstrates why pleadings should distinguish contractual liability under Section 616 from negligence under Section 420.

Case 3: Supreme Court Decision No. 12725/2555

Subject: Mechanical vehicle liability, employer responsibility and braking failure

The case concerned a tractor unit and semi-trailer involved in an accident while transporting goods.

The claimant argued that the vehicle's braking system had failed and that the employer should be liable for the driver's conduct.

The Supreme Court distinguished between:

Section 420: personal liability based on wrongful conduct or negligence.

Section 437: liability of the person possessing or controlling a mechanically powered vehicle.

Section 425: employer liability for an employee's wrongful act committed in the course of employment.

The Court also emphasized that the cause of action pleaded determines the legal issues that may properly be considered.

Legal principles:

Mechanical vehicle liability and ordinary negligence are different legal grounds.

Employer liability may arise under Section 425.

A claimant must properly plead the relevant statutory basis.

Braking-system failure can raise significant questions about vehicle operation and safety.

Relevance to autonomous freight:

A malfunctioning autonomous braking system may generate claims against the operator and potentially the manufacturer or maintenance provider.

The case is particularly useful when determining whether a fleet operator can be held responsible for a transportation accident involving technology-controlled vehicles.

Case 4: Supreme Court Decision No. 5679/2545

Subject: Meaning of possession and control under Section 437

The Supreme Court considered whether a registered vehicle owner was liable under Section 437.

The Court explained that possession for purposes of Section 437 concerns actual possession or control at the time the damage occurs.

The mere fact that a person's name appears in the vehicle registration does not automatically establish that the person possessed or controlled the vehicle when the accident occurred.

Legal principles:

Registration ownership and actual possession are distinct.

Actual control at the time of the accident is important.

Section 437 requires examination of the defendant's relationship with the vehicle.

Relevance to autonomous freight:

Autonomous transport creates a more complicated control structure.

For example, a truck may be owned by one company, leased to another, operated by a logistics company, and monitored by a remote fleet-control centre.

The court would need to examine the actual control arrangements rather than relying exclusively on vehicle registration.

Case 5: Supreme Court Decision No. 765/2533

Subject: Employer responsibility and mechanically powered vehicles

This decision is among the precedents cited in discussions of Section 437.

It concerned a public passenger vehicle driven by an employee who caused a fatal accident.

The case illustrates the interaction between the driver's control of a mechanically powered vehicle and the employer's responsibility arising from the employment relationship.

Legal principles:

Actual vehicle control is legally significant.

The dangerous-vehicle liability provisions may apply.

Employer responsibility must be examined under the relevant statutory requirements.

Relevance to autonomous freight:

Where a freight company deploys autonomous vehicles through employees, remote operators, or fleet supervisors, its potential responsibility must be examined according to the actual employment and control relationships.

The absence of a conventional driver does not automatically eliminate the possibility of employer or operator liability.

Case 6: Supreme Court Decision No. 3360/2531

Subject: Negligent driving and loss of vehicle control

This decision concerned a vehicle driven at excessive speed through a curve without reducing speed appropriately. The vehicle lost control and overturned.

The Court treated the failure to exercise reasonable care while driving as negligence.

Legal principles:

Drivers must exercise reasonable care in vehicle operation.

Failure to adapt speed to road conditions can constitute negligence.

Loss of control does not automatically establish force majeure.

Relevance to autonomous freight:

The equivalent autonomous-vehicle question is whether the system was properly designed and configured to respond to:

Curved roads.

Steep gradients.

Wet surfaces.

Heavy cargo loads.

Changing traffic conditions.

Emergency obstacles.

The case offers an analogy for assessing unreasonable vehicle operation, although an AI system's conduct must be assessed through the responsibilities of the relevant human and corporate actors.

Case 7: Supreme Court Decision No. 3076/2522

Subject: Vehicle possession and responsibility for accidents

This decision concerned an accident involving a vehicle belonging to one defendant but driven by an employee of a petrol station.

The dispute raised the question of whether ownership alone was sufficient to establish liability under Section 437.

Legal principles:

Vehicle ownership does not necessarily establish statutory possession or control.

The circumstances of actual control at the time of the accident are important.

Liability must be established against the correct defendant.

Relevance to autonomous freight:

Where an autonomous vehicle is leased, outsourced, or remotely operated, ownership alone may not determine responsibility. Courts should examine the contractual and operational arrangements governing the vehicle.

Case 8: Supreme Court Decision No. 124/2533

Subject: Proof of actual control over a mechanically powered vehicle

This decision considered whether a defendant could be held liable under Section 437 when the evidence did not establish that the defendant possessed or controlled the vehicle at the time of the accident.

Legal principles:

A claimant must establish the necessary factual foundation for Section 437.

Mere involvement with or ownership of a vehicle is insufficient.

The actual circumstances of possession and control matter.

Relevance to autonomous freight:

This principle is important where a logistics platform, vehicle manufacturer, fleet owner, and remote-control contractor have different responsibilities. A claimant must identify the party whose legal relationship with the vehicle satisfies the relevant statutory requirements.

6. Major categories of autonomous freight transport litigation

A. Autonomous vehicle accident claims

Tom Slater: Manager Review | Baillie Gifford

Lag for lag: Teknologien som gjør selvkjøring mulig

Automatic emergency braking in commercial vehicles | Fleet Maintenance

10

Accidents involving autonomous trucks can produce claims for personal injury, death, property damage, and economic loss.

Common scenarios include:

AI misidentification of road obstacles.

Autonomous emergency-braking failure.

Incorrect lane-changing decisions.

GPS navigation errors.

Failure to detect motorcycles or pedestrians.

Unsafe operation under adverse weather conditions.

The main legal provisions are Sections 420 and 437 of the CCC.

Where an employee's wrongful act causes the accident in the course of employment, Section 425 may also apply.

B. Cargo damage and loss litigation

unloading carton from container and carton damage from loading or transport process.

Cargo damage is one of the most commercially important areas of autonomous freight litigation.

Examples include:

Goods damaged during automated emergency braking.

Temperature-sensitive goods spoiled because of sensor failure.

Cargo lost because of incorrect autonomous routing.

Containers delivered to the wrong destination.

Goods damaged by automated loading and unloading systems.

Section 616 is particularly important.

A claimant should establish:

The transportation agreement.

The quantity and condition of goods entrusted to the carrier.

The condition of goods at delivery.

The nature and amount of the loss.

The carrier's responsibility under the applicable legal regime.

The carrier must then establish any applicable statutory defence.

C. Software malfunction litigation

Software malfunction can create disputes between the freight operator and technology supplier.

Examples include:

Defective object-recognition software.

Incorrect vehicle-routing algorithms.

Software updates that disable safety functions.

Failure of communication between the vehicle and control centre.

Inadequate cybersecurity protection.

Section 420 may apply where negligent development, integration, maintenance, or deployment causes legally recognized damage.

The Product Liability Act may also apply where the relevant autonomous vehicle or component qualifies as an unsafe product under the Act.

A key legal issue is distinguishing a defect in a tangible product from a failure of a separately supplied software service.

D. Autonomous freight delivery delays

Delivery delays can cause substantial commercial losses.

For example, an autonomous truck carrying pharmaceutical products may be delayed because its navigation system incorrectly blocks a permitted route.

Potential claims include:

Contractual damages.

Loss arising from delayed delivery.

Additional storage costs.

Deterioration of perishable goods.

Losses caused by missed commercial deadlines.

Section 616 expressly addresses delay in delivery.

However, the claimant must establish the contractual obligation, actual delay, legally recoverable damage, and the absence of an applicable defence.

E. Cybersecurity and autonomous freight attacks

Cyberattacks may compromise autonomous freight vehicles through:

GPS spoofing.

Remote-control interference.

Unauthorized software access.

Ransomware.

Manipulation of cargo-monitoring systems.

Theft of digital freight credentials.

These incidents can result in personal injury, cargo loss, or interruption of transportation services.

Potential legal claims may involve negligence, contractual breaches, product liability, and data-protection obligations.

Whether a cyberattack qualifies as force majeure depends on its circumstances, foreseeability, preventability, and the applicable contractual and statutory requirements. A cyberattack is not automatically force majeure.

F. Multi-party transportation disputes

Autonomous freight journeys frequently involve multiple businesses:

The court must examine the actual conduct, contractual relationship, and applicable statutory provisions of each party.

7. Important evidentiary issues in autonomous freight litigation

Autonomous freight disputes may be more technically complicated than ordinary road-accident litigation.

A. Electronic evidence

Important evidence includes:

Vehicle event logs.

GPS records.

Sensor recordings.

Camera footage.

Autonomous decision logs.

Software-update histories.

Remote-control records.

Electronic cargo receipts.

Digital transport contracts.

The Electronic Transactions Act B.E. 2544 provides a framework for recognizing electronic transactions and records.

B. Algorithmic decision reconstruction

A court may need to determine why an autonomous truck made a particular decision.

For example, investigators may need to establish:

What the vehicle detected.

How the AI classified an obstacle.

Which route the system selected.

Whether the emergency-braking mechanism activated.

Whether a human operator could intervene.

Whether the software had been properly maintained.

Technical experts may be required to explain these matters.

C. Burden of proof

The applicable burden depends on the legal basis of the claim.

A particularly important principle is that claimants should not confuse the burden of proof under Section 420 with the statutory presumption under Section 437 or the carrier's responsibility under Section 616.

8. Compensation and available civil remedies

Victims of autonomous freight accidents may seek several forms of compensation, depending on their legal relationship with the defendant.

A. Personal injury compensation

Possible claims include:

Medical expenses.

Rehabilitation costs.

Loss of earnings.

Future earning-capacity losses.

Compensation for other legally recognized injury.

B. Property damage

Claims may include:

Vehicle repair costs.

Replacement costs.

Damage to buildings and infrastructure.

Damage to cargo.

Reasonable expenses incurred in mitigating losses.

C. Contractual compensation

Under the applicable CCC provisions, claims may concern:

Failure to deliver goods.

Cargo deterioration.

Delay in delivery.

Breach of transportation agreements.

Failure to comply with agreed safety obligations.

D. Product liability compensation

Where the Product Liability Act applies, an injured claimant may seek compensation under its statutory framework.

E. Insurance claims

Relevant insurance arrangements may include:

Compulsory motor insurance.

Voluntary motor insurance.

Commercial vehicle insurance.

Cargo insurance.

Carrier liability insurance.

Product liability insurance.

Cyber insurance.

The existence and scope of coverage depend on the particular policy, exclusions, and applicable legislation.

9. Defences available to autonomous freight operators

Defendants may rely on several legal defences, depending on the cause of action.

A. Force majeure

Under the relevant CCC provisions, a carrier may establish that loss, damage, or delay resulted from force majeure.

However, ordinary mechanical failure, poor maintenance, or foreseeable software malfunction will not automatically qualify.

B. Fault of the sender or consignee

Under Section 616, the carrier may rely on the sender's or consignee's fault where the statutory requirements are satisfied.

Examples include:

Incorrect cargo descriptions.

Improper packaging.

Failure to disclose dangerous goods.

Incorrect delivery instructions.

C. Fault of the injured person

Section 437 recognizes the injured person's own fault as a defence.

Contributory fault may also be relevant to the assessment of compensation under the applicable CCC provisions.

D. Absence of actual possession or control

A defendant may argue that it did not possess or control the vehicle in the relevant statutory sense.

Supreme Court Decisions Nos. 5679/2545 and 3076/2522 illustrate why actual possession and control must be examined.

E. Absence of causation

A manufacturer or software supplier may argue that the alleged defect did not cause the accident.

For example, the accident might instead have resulted from an unauthorized software modification, improper cargo loading, or negligent maintenance by another party.

10. Regulatory challenges in Thailand

Thailand faces several legal and institutional challenges in developing an autonomous freight transportation system.

Chinese unmanned vehicles help build a modern green port in Thailand--Seetao

Truk otonom China hadirkan efisiensi lingkungan pelabuhan di Thailand

#amr #warehouseautomation #robotics #hikrobot #europeanfood #thailand #casestudy | Avalin Mei

9

A. Absence of a comprehensive autonomous vehicle framework

Thai legal scholarship has identified difficulties in applying existing vehicle registration and driver-related requirements to autonomous vehicles.

A 2022 study concerning the Vehicles Act B.E. 2522 identified issues involving vehicle registration, driver qualifications, and insurance for self-driving vehicles.

Thai-Journal Online

B. Uncertainty concerning responsibility

Existing laws do not comprehensively allocate liability among:

AI manufacturers.

Autonomous vehicle operators.

Software developers.

Fleet managers.

Remote supervisors.

Logistics service providers.

C. Insurance uncertainty

Traditional motor insurance arrangements may not clearly address all risks arising from autonomous driving.

Insurance contracts should expressly address software failures, cyber incidents, remote operation, and automated decision-making.

D. Software and product liability

A 2023 Thai legal study specifically examines autonomous vehicles as integrated systems of hardware and software and discusses Sections 437 and the Product Liability Act.

It highlights the need to reconsider the allocation of responsibility between drivers, owners, and manufacturers.

Thai-Journal Online

E. International transportation

Autonomous freight may cross national borders and involve different legal systems.

International transportation agreements, applicable carriage conventions, contractual jurisdiction, and insurance arrangements may therefore become important.

Thailand's International Carriage of Goods by Road Act B.E. 2556 (2013) may be relevant to qualifying international road-carriage disputes.

11. Suggested legal reforms for Thailand

The following reforms could improve legal certainty.

A. Introduce a statutory definition of autonomous freight vehicles

The legislation should distinguish:

Driver-assistance vehicles.

Partially automated vehicles.

Highly automated vehicles.

Fully autonomous vehicles.

Different categories may require different operational and safety obligations.

B. Clarify operator liability

Legislation should identify the responsibilities of the entity that deploys and commercially operates an autonomous freight vehicle.

The framework should also address remote supervision, emergency intervention, maintenance, and system updates.

C. Introduce algorithmic transparency

Freight operators should preserve essential information concerning automated decisions, particularly when an accident or cargo loss occurs.

D. Establish mandatory insurance coverage

Insurance regulation should address both conventional vehicle risks and technology-related losses.

E. Develop specialist dispute resolution

Thailand could consider specialist mechanisms for resolving disputes involving autonomous transport, including technical expert determination and mediation.

12. Practical hypothetical case studies

Case Study 1: Autonomous truck collision

A driverless freight truck collides with a passenger vehicle because its AI system fails to detect a stationary obstacle.

Potential legal provisions:

Section 420: Negligence.

Section 437: Mechanically powered vehicle liability.

Section 425: Employer liability, where applicable.

Product Liability Act: Unsafe product liability, where its requirements are satisfied.

Potential defendants: Freight operator, actual vehicle controller, manufacturer, or software supplier, depending on the evidence.

Case Study 2: Pharmaceutical cargo damage

An autonomous truck transporting medicines experiences a refrigeration-monitoring failure. The medicines become unusable before delivery.

Potential legal provisions:

Section 616: Carrier responsibility.

Section 420: Independent negligence, where established.

Relevant contractual provisions.

Product Liability Act, if a qualifying unsafe product caused the damage.

Main issue: Whether the carrier can establish a statutory defence and whether the refrigeration failure resulted from defective equipment, inadequate maintenance, or another cause.

Case Study 3: Autonomous truck cyberattack

A hacker manipulates the GPS information of an autonomous truck, causing it to travel to an unauthorized location where the cargo is stolen.

Potential legal issues:

Carrier liability under Section 616.

Contractual responsibility.

Negligent cybersecurity arrangements.

Electronic evidence.

Applicable cybercrime and data-protection legislation.

Main issue: Whether the cyberattack and surrounding circumstances establish a legally recognized defence or whether the loss remains attributable to the carrier or another responsible party.

13. Overall legal assessment

14. Conclusion

Civil Law and Autonomous Freight Transport Litigation in Thailand represents an emerging area of transportation, commercial, technological, and tort law.

The most important legal provisions are Sections 420, 425, 437, and 616–618 of the Thai Civil and Commercial Code.

The eight Supreme Court decisions discussed above establish useful principles concerning:

Carrier liability for damaged goods.

The burden of proof under Section 616.

Subcontracted transportation.

Mechanical vehicle liability.

Employer responsibility.

Actual possession and control.

Negligent vehicle operation.

The distinction between contractual and tortious claims.

The most significant legal challenge is determining responsibility when an autonomous freight vehicle makes a decision without direct human intervention.

Thailand's traditional civil-law principles can address many of these disputes, but more specific legislation concerning autonomous vehicle authorization, operational control, insurance, product safety, and algorithmic accountability would provide greater legal certainty.

Ultimately, autonomous technology does not eliminate civil liability. It changes the factual and legal analysis required to identify the responsible party, establish causation, and compensate the injured person or affected cargo owner.

Research note: The eight decisions above are existing Thai Supreme Court authorities concerning conventional transportation and mechanically powered vehicles, not eight autonomous-truck judgments. The analysis applies their principles by analogy to autonomous freight disputes. The autonomous-vehicle regulatory gap is also discussed in Thai legal scholarship.