Deeply saddened, the employer tearfully recounted the moment he learned that his diligent employee had died from the "Rama 2 crane collapse." He strongly condemned negligence as the cause of losing a family’s head.
Regarding the crane incident involving construction equipment used on the elevated highway project, Special Highway No. 82, Bang Khun Thian–Ban Phaeo Elevated Route, section Ekachai–Ban Phaeo, km 30+300 on Rama 2 Road in Samut Sakhon province, which initially caused five injuries and two deaths,
on 15 Jan 2026, Mr. Norakrit Chaisuwanna, the employer of the deceased Mr. Sarawut Vejakarn, 45, came to the scene and revealed that his employee had been driving the company’s delivery truck from Bang Na to deliver milk at Nam Phu Plaza in Samut Sakhon, the final stop. The employee was driving normally on his usual route and no one expected such an accident.
The deceased had worked with him for four years in the same unit. Whenever there was work, he would assign tasks to him. Actually, the employee had no assigned work that day, but because of his diligence, he asked to deliver goods on this route as he had business near Mahachai. Unfortunately, the accident happened first. At first, he did not know, but after seeing the news, another employee checked the truck's GPS and found the signal cut off around 9 a.m.
At first, he did not believe it, so he checked more carefully to confirm the exact time the signal was lost, which matched the timing of the accident. Then he questioned everyone involved and finally confirmed that it was indeed his employee.
He then immediately drove from Chonburi to the accident site to personally confirm whether the body still inside the truck was his employee and whether it was his company’s vehicle. He waited until the body was recovered. Officials initially confirmed that the vehicle’s registration matched the company’s. It was a general transport truck used for deliveries on various routes.
The deceased’s family has been informed. He assigned another employee to support them emotionally, as the deceased left behind a wife and young children. They feared the family would struggle to cope with such a sudden loss. The deceased had married just over a year ago and was known for being hardworking, friendly, kind-hearted, and never missing work. Even that day, he initially wanted to take leave but eventually called to ask to work the delivery route himself.
Rama 2 Road has seen several major incidents causing repeated losses. He urged the responsible agencies to consider the families of the deceased. His employee’s family will face hardship after losing their head of household so suddenly. From his personal experience on the road, he felt it was not ready for use, although it was opened temporarily. He found the site disorderly and, from his perspective, unsafe.
He was at a loss for words but vowed to support the deceased’s family as best as the company could. He expressed deep sorrow over the loss and emphasized that negligence caused the loss of two good employees from two families. He questioned why only a few companies undertake such projects and called for blacklisting the original companies. He also criticized relevant agencies for failing to solve this problem, as such accidents would not happen if they had addressed it properly.