Supreme Court of Turkey, 21st Civil Chamber Article No: 2013/1589
Decision No: 2013/9138
Decision Date: 07.05.2013
COMPENSATION CASE – RELATIVES OF A WORKER WHO DIED AS A RESULT OF A WORK ACCIDENT – CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION FOR NON-MATERIAL DAMAGES –
COMPENSATION TO BE DETERMINED ACCORDING TO ITS PURPOSE – MORAL –
COMPENSATION FOR EXCESSIVE VALUATION ERROR –
THE POINT AT WHICH THIS JUDGMENT WAS OVERTURNED
SUMMARY: The lawsuit aims to compensate the relatives of a worker who lost his life in a work accident for their moral damages.
Taking into account the specific circumstances, the amount of money to be awarded to the rightful claimant as moral damages must be fair. This money will be assessed by the person who suffered moral damage as having a unique quality that provides peace of mind, similar to compensation.
Since it is not a punishment, the purpose of compensation is not to cover damages related to the law. In this case, the limit of this compensation should be determined according to its purpose. The amount to be assessed should be the amount necessary to provide the satisfaction obtained and desired in the current situation. Since each of these may vary depending on the case, the judge exercises his discretion in this matter and the decision should be made correctly according to objective measurements at the scene of the incident, in line with the reasons affecting it. (4857 PK m. 77) (818 PK m. 47) (YIBK 22.06.1966 T. 1966/7 e. 1966/7 K.) (YHGK 23.06.2004 T. 2004/13-291 E. 2004/370 K.)
Case: The plaintiffs request a decision ordering the payment of material and moral damages for a person who died as a result of an occupational accident. As stated in its decision, the court ruled to partially accept the request. The decision is between the plaintiffs and the defendants C… Inc. and E… Trade Ltd. The appeal was filed by their representative, C… Inc.
If the appeal is filed by the representative in accordance with the principles of adjudication, the appeal request shall be made in accordance with the procedure after the documents in the file have been understood and read together with the report prepared by the KGA Investigating Judge, and since the case subject to appeal does not fall under any of the limited circumstances specified in Article 438 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Supreme Court review shall be conducted after the decision to reject the enforcement request has been made. Considering the necessity of the work, the following decision has been made:
Decision: The case concerns the claim for moral damages by the relatives of a worker who died as a result of a work-related accident. The court determined that the plaintiff is A… Inc., that the defendants are C… Inc. and E… Ltd. Co. due to the plaintiff’s dismissal of the case, and that the defendant is Muris M. He., daughter of D. He.
50,000.00 £ for her daughter KA, 50,000.00 £ for her son O. He., 50,000.00 £ for her son A.
, his mother F. He., his brother HD in exchange for £15,000.00, his brother R. He. in exchange for £7,000.00,
along with legal interest and moral damages from December 19, 2010 (date of the accident) onwards,
to be jointly and severally collected from the defendants and paid to the plaintiffs, pursuant to Article 77 of the Labor Law
The article includes an examination of the relevant articles of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation according to the nature of the workplace, what happened at the workplace, the necessary measures the employer should have taken at the workplace, what measures were taken, whether the employee took the measures, whether they complied with the measures taken, and a detailed examination of the existence and extent of the fault without any doubt or hesitation.
This study was submitted to a panel of three experts specializing in occupational health and safety, who were asked to re-examine the subject as described above. The aim is to evaluate all the evidence together and make a decision based on the outcome. According to the accepted facts, M., the father, brother, and son of the plaintiffs, lost his life as a result of a work accident that occurred on December 19, 2010. It is understood that the worker who lost his life at the time of the accident was 20% at fault. According to Article 47 of the Code of Obligations, moral damages are determined by the judge taking into account the specific circumstances and awarding the amount of money that is fair to the rightful owner.
This money is considered compensation that ensures the moral peace of the injured person and has a unique nature. Since its function does not include a punitive ruling, it is not intended to cover damages related to civil law. Therefore, the limit of this compensation should be determined according to its purpose. The amount to be assessed is the amount of satisfaction sought in the current situation and should be as much as necessary to achieve the effect. In its ruling dated June 22, 1966, No. 7/7, the Supreme Court addressed a special circumstance that would affect the amount of moral compensation to be assessed based on the grounds of the Merger Decision. The conditions are also clearly stated.
Judges exercise discretion in this matter because these may vary from case to case;
the reasons that are effective in exercising this right must also be correctly demonstrated in the decision based on objective criteria.
When exercising this discretion, the judge must take into account the economic conditions of the country, the social and economic
When exercising this discretion, the judge shall take sufficient account of factors such as the country’s economic conditions, social and economic
status, purchasing power of money, the fault of the parties, the gravity of the incident, the date of the incident
and the employer’s occupational health and safety measures,
in accordance with the approach developed in law;
and it is clear that moral damages must also be considered due to the emergence of an unsatisfactory situation
. (HGK 23.06.2004, 13/291-370)
Considering these principles, it has been determined that the excessive award of moral damages granted to the children of the deceased worker, plaintiffs is erroneous.
The court will decide in writing on these material and legal facts without considering the procedure, and
this is contrary to the law and constitutes a violation of the law.
Therefore, the appeals of the plaintiffs and defendants (C… San. A.Ş. and E… Ltd. Şti.) regarding these matters
should be accepted, and the judgment should be overturned.
Conclusion: For the reasons explained above, other appeals based on the VIOLATION of the ruling, as the cause of the violation,
should not be examined at this time due to the absence of grounds for objection. The appeal fee shall be paid to the appellants upon request, and
its refund was unanimously decided on May 7, 2013.