Accidents involving at least one motor vehicle are classified as traffic accidents. If, as a result of the traffic accident, the injured party is harmed or permanently disabled, they have the right to claim compensation against the persons responsible for the accident to cover both material and moral damages. If the injured person becomes disabled and requests material and moral compensation, they can claim material compensation for the loss of work capacity they will experience throughout their working life, as well as moral compensation for the pain, stress, grief, and sorrow caused by the traffic accident. This situation is regulated under Article 49 of the Turkish Code of Obligations.
Turkish Code of Obligations ARTICLE 49 – A person who causes damage to another through a faulty and unlawful act is obliged to repair that damage.
Even if there is no legal rule prohibiting the harmful act, a person who intentionally causes damage to another through an act contrary to morality is also obliged to repair that damage.
Who Can File a Compensation Lawsuit for a Traffic Accident?
First of all, it should be noted that the rightful claimant in a compensation lawsuit filed due to a traffic accident is the injured party themselves—those who were injured, harmed, or permanently disabled as a result of the accident.
However, in the event of death caused by a traffic accident, the deceased’s close relatives (such as the mother, father, spouse, children, or fiancé) who have suffered material and moral damages have the right to file a lawsuit for compensation of these damages.
A third case is when the injured party sustains serious bodily injury due to the traffic accident; in this situation, the injured party’s close relatives (mother, father, siblings, children, fiancé) have the right to file a lawsuit solely for moral (non-material) compensation. This issue is regulated under Article 56 of the Turkish Code of Obligations.
Turkish Code of Obligations Article 56:
“The judge may decide to award a suitable amount of money as moral compensation to the injured party, taking into account the characteristics of the case, in situations where a person’s bodily integrity is impaired.
In cases of serious bodily injury or death, a suitable amount of money may also be awarded as moral compensation to the injured party’s or the deceased’s relatives.”
As can be understood from the wording of the law above, if the injured party dies or suffers serious bodily injury, the injured party’s relatives can also claim compensation. The term “serious bodily injury” here should be understood to include cases such as the loss of a limb, entering a vegetative state, or inability to perform vital bodily functions.
How Are Material and Moral Damages Determined?
When determining material and moral compensation resulting from a traffic accident, the judge will consider certain factors and assess the amount of compensation accordingly.
Regarding material compensation in traffic accidents, if there are injuries, treatment expenses will be taken into account. If the injury results in permanent disability, the loss of work capacity and financial income caused by the disability will also be considered. Additionally, material damage to the injured person’s vehicle or belongings, funeral expenses in case of death, and compensation for loss of support for dependents due to the injured person’s death will be included in the calculation.
For moral compensation, the pain and suffering caused by the injury and physical harm to the injured person will be the basis. Furthermore, if the traffic accident results in death, the significant pain and loss experienced will lead to greater moral damages, thereby increasing the scope of moral compensation.
Who Should the Compensation Lawsuit Due to a Traffic Accident Be Filed Against?
In our legal system, traffic accidents are considered torts. Therefore, under Article 49 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, a compensation lawsuit can be filed against the driver of the vehicle responsible for causing the tort. However, even if they did not have a direct role in causing the traffic accident, there are other parties who may also be liable for compensation.
Highways Traffic Law Article 85 – If the operation of a motor vehicle causes a person’s death, injury, or damage to property, and if the motor vehicle is operated under the name or title of a business enterprise or with a ticket issued by that enterprise, the operator of the motor vehicle and the owner of the related enterprise are jointly and severally liable for the resulting damages.
In our legal system, the actual owner of the vehicle is considered the operator of the vehicle. Therefore, in a traffic accident, even if the owner of the vehicle did not directly cause the accident, they are still liable for compensation under Article 85/1 of the Highways Traffic Law. In addition, just like the owner, the operator of the vehicle can also be sued for material and moral damages arising from the accident.
Another party liable for compensation due to damages arising from a traffic accident is the insurance company of the vehicle involved. Under Articles 90 and 91 of the Highways Traffic Law, the insurance company that provides the compulsory liability insurance for the vehicle involved in the traffic accident is also responsible for death, injury, and other damages resulting from the accident. However, it is only possible to claim material compensation from insurance companies.
What is the Statute of Limitations for Material and Moral Compensation Claims Arising from Traffic Accidents?
In our legal system, the provisions regarding the statute of limitations for claims of material and moral compensation arising from traffic accidents are regulated in the Highways Traffic Law. Furthermore, the limitation periods for material and moral compensation claims begin to run from the moment the wrongful act, i.e., the traffic accident, occurs.
Highways Traffic Law Article 109 – Claims for compensation of material damages arising from motor vehicle accidents become time-barred two years after the injured party learns of the damage and the liable party, and in any case, within ten years from the date of the accident.
If the case arises from an act punishable by law and the criminal law prescribes a longer statute of limitations for that act, this longer period also applies to claims for material compensation.
Which Court Has Jurisdiction Over Compensation Lawsuits Due to Traffic Accidents?
According to the Code of Civil Procedure, multiple courts have jurisdiction over material and moral compensation lawsuits filed due to traffic accidents involving death or injury. Accordingly, compensation lawsuits related to traffic accidents can be filed at the court of the place where the accident occurred, the court of the residence of any of the defendants, the court of the injured party’s residence, or the court where the traffic insurance company of the vehicle involved in the accident is headquartered.
Regarding the competent court, for material and moral compensation lawsuits arising from fatal or injurious traffic accidents, the competent court is the Civil Court of First Instance. For example, a compensation lawsuit for a traffic accident that occurred in Antalya should be filed at the Antalya Civil Court of First Instance.
However, it should be noted that if the lawsuit is filed only against the vehicle owner and operator as natural persons, the Civil Court of First Instance will have jurisdiction. If the lawsuit is filed against the insurance company or the operator as a legal entity (commercial enterprise), the Commercial Court of First Instance will be competent, and it will be mandatory to apply to mediation before filing a lawsuit against the insurance company (commercial entity).
Article 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) – (1) The court with general jurisdiction is the court of the defendant’s residence at the time the lawsuit is filed, whether the defendant is a natural or legal person.
Article 14/2 of the CCP – (2) For lawsuits filed by private law legal entities limited to partnership or membership relationships, against a partner or member, or by a partner or member in this capacity against others, the court of the place where the relevant legal entity’s headquarters is located has exclusive jurisdiction.
Article 16/1 of the CCP – (1) In cases arising from a wrongful act, the courts of the place where the wrongful act was committed, or where the damage occurred or could have occurred, as well as the court of the injured party’s residence, have jurisdiction.
How is Material Compensation Calculated in Case of Disability Resulting from a Traffic Accident?
The factors considered in calculating material compensation in case of disability are the degree of disability, the earning capacity of the disabled person, and the degree of fault in the traffic accident. According to our law, it is accepted that individuals have a working capacity until the age of 72, with an active working period up to age 65 and a passive working period up to age 72. The loss of work capacity of the injured disabled person should be calculated separately on a monthly basis. To explain this calculation method with an example:
Assume that the injured person has a monthly income of 10,000 TL, is 40 years old, has a disability rate of 50%, and has 40% fault in the traffic accident causing injury. In this case, the injured person has an active working period of 25 years and a passive working period of 7 years.
To calculate, the fault rate of 40% should be deducted from the disabled person’s salary. Since 10,000 × 40% = 6,000 TL, the amount found is 6,000 Turkish Liras. When this amount is multiplied by the disability rate of 50%, 6,000 × 50% = 3,000 Turkish Liras results. Therefore, in our concrete example, the injured person’s monthly loss of work capacity is 3,000 TL and yearly loss is 36,000 TL. The example states that the injured person is 40 years old. Accordingly, calculating a 32-year loss of work capacity, 32 × 36,000 = 1,152,000 Turkish Liras will be the material compensation.
(The calculation provided is hypothetical to aid understanding of the topic, and in an actual lawsuit, other factors will be considered, so professional calculations may differ.)
Supreme Court Decisions Regarding Compensation Resulting from Traffic Accidents
Regarding the Determination of Moral Compensation
17th Civil Chamber, Case No: 2016/1061, Decision No: 2018/10491
It is clear that when the judge exercises this discretionary power, they must take into account factors such as the country’s economic conditions, the social and economic status of the parties, the purchasing power of money, the fault status of the parties, the severity of the incident, and the date of the event, and accordingly determine the amount of moral compensation. (Supreme Court General Assembly Decision, 23/06/2004, No: 13/291-370)
In light of the principles explained above, although moral compensation is not a means of enrichment, when a ruling is made regarding such a claim, it should aim to partially alleviate the pain and suffering caused by the incident. For this reason, the social and economic circumstances of the parties as well as the manner in which the incident occurred should be considered, and a conclusion should be reached within the framework of rights and equity rules. Indeed, Article 4 of the Code of Obligations foresees that in cases where the law grants discretionary power, the judge shall rule in accordance with justice and equity.
Considering the above-mentioned matters, it has been seen that the moral compensation awarded to the plaintiffs is somewhat insufficient, and the decision has been reversed to grant a moral compensation amount that is equitable.
Supreme Court Decision Regarding the Spouse’s Compensation Claim
Civil Chamber 2015/6889 E., 2018/631 K.
In the concrete case, the plaintiff’s attorney claimed material compensation on the grounds that separate loss of support damages arose for the spouse and children. In the reasoning of the decision, it was stated: “It has been established by the expert report that the plaintiff … is entitled to 142,085.74 TL and … is entitled to 742.20 TL in support compensation claims, and that the support claims of the other children have been more than sufficiently covered by the payments made by the defendant insurance company. It was understood that the plaintiff’s attorney amended the claimed amount for … to 130,661.00 TL and therefore the case was accepted based on the amended amount.” However, in the judgment clause (although the case was essentially partially accepted), the judgment was given only regarding the plaintiff spouse … with the wording “case accepted,” and no positive or negative decision was given regarding the claims of the other plaintiff children. This contradiction between the reasoning and the judgment was found inappropriate, and for these reasons, the decision had to be overturned.
Supreme Court Decision Regarding Insurance Company Liability in Terms of Fault in Traffic Accidents
Supreme Court 17th Civil Chamber – Decision: 2016/2637
It has been determined that the plaintiffs did not file the lawsuit solely as heirs of the deceased but as third parties deprived of support. The fault that caused the loss of support directly suffered by the plaintiffs due to the death cannot be attributed to the plaintiffs; therefore, even if the vehicle driver or operator is fully at fault, this will not affect the plaintiffs deprived of support. According to Article 2918 of the Highway Traffic Law and the General Conditions of the Compulsory Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance, the defendant insurance company, as the compulsory liability insurer of the vehicle, covers the damages caused by the operator to third parties. Since the plaintiffs deprived of support are considered third parties who suffered damages, the defendant insurance company must be held responsible, even if the operator or driver is fully at fault. (Supreme Court General Assembly Decisions 2011/411, 2012/92, 2013/74)
In the concrete case, it is understood that the deceased driver, who is the principal of the plaintiffs, died with 100% of his own fault in the vehicle. The court, following the above-mentioned legal provisions and General Assembly decisions, must decide to accept the case without any deduction since the plaintiffs are third parties.
Supreme Court Decision on the Liability of the Operator and Vehicle Owner
General Assembly of Civil Chambers – Decision No. 2013/379
The person registered as the owner in the traffic registry is presumed to be the operator of the vehicle. The reason for this presumption is to easily identify the person responsible in a traffic accident and to ensure that the victim’s damages are compensated as soon as possible. It should be noted that the person registered as the owner in the registry may not always be the actual operator of the vehicle. In such cases, the vehicle owner can avoid liability if they prove that they do not have actual control over the vehicle, that someone else has incurred expenses related to the vehicle, or that the economic interest in the vehicle belongs to another person, thereby showing that they do not hold the status of operator.
Supreme Court Decision Regarding Insurance Companies and Limited Policies
Supreme Court 17th Civil Chamber Case No: 2016/15151, Decision No: 2019/7629
In the concrete case, it is established that the accident occurred during transportation, and that the motor vehicle’s transportation liability insurance covering the accident date was issued by the co-defendant … Insurance Co. with a coverage limit of 268,000.00 TL per person for death and injury. In this situation, the court should consider that the vehicle involved in the accident has compulsory transportation liability insurance, and the traffic (ZMSS) insurance can only be applied to for damages exceeding the transportation liability insurance limit. Since the expert report states that the amount determined (totaling 197,544.42 TL) does not exceed the transportation liability insurance limit (268,000.00 TL), the lawsuit filed against the traffic (ZMSS) insurer … Insurance Co. should be decided after evaluating the factual and legal circumstances. However, it is seen that a ruling was made based on a mistaken assessment as stated in the written decision, which is considered incorrect.
Supreme Court Decision Regarding the Determination of Disability Rate
Supreme Court 17th Civil Chamber – Decision No: 2017/8643
Regarding the determination of the plaintiff’s disability rate, an actuarial calculation was made based on the report obtained from the forensic medicine specialist doctor according to the regulations, accepting that the plaintiff has a permanent disability rate of 8.6%. However, since the report on which the judgment was based was not prepared according to the provisions of the “Regulation on the Determination of Loss of Working Capacity and Loss of Earning Capacity” in force on the accident date of 25.01.2009, it is not possible to base the judgment on it… The court should have obtained a report from the Forensic Medicine Department Chairmanship or Forensic Medicine Branch Directorate of the nearest university in accordance with the provisions of the “Regulation on the Determination of Loss of Working Capacity and Loss of Earning Capacity,” taking into account the plaintiff’s previous disability as well as determining the causal link between the current disability and the accident, and then performed the actuarial calculation based on this disability rate and issued the judgment accordingly. The judgment, however, was made with incomplete examination as stated, which requires reversal.
