Traffic Accident, Failure To Wear A Helmet: Supreme Court Decision Requiring A 20% Reduction For Contributory Negligence
T.C.
COURT OF CASSATION
17th CIVIL CHAMBER
CASE NO: 2017/5716
DECISION NO: 2018/1495
DATE OF DECISION: 01/03/2018
COURT: Civil Court of First Instance
>>TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, SINCE CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE WAS FOUND DUE TO NOT WEARING A HELMET, A CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE DISCOUNT OF AT LEAST 20% SHOULD BE APPLIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ESTABLISHED PRACTICE.
Following the trial of the compensation case between the parties, the decision partially accepting the case was appealed within the time limit by the plaintiffs’ attorney, the defendant’s attorney, and the defendant’s attorney. The case file was reviewed and the following decision was reached:
DECISION
The plaintiffs’ attorney stated that the defendant’s driver in the main case, who was the compulsory financial liability insurer in the consolidated case, caused an accident by colliding with the vehicle in which the plaintiffs’ dependents were traveling as passengers, resulting in the death of the dependents, and requested 5,000.00 in material damages and 50,000.00 TL each for the support’s parents and 25,000.00 TL for the support’s sibling in moral damages, with legal interest from the date of the incident.
The defendants argued for the dismissal of the case.
Based on the reversal ruling and the evidence gathered, the court ruled that in the main case, a 5% fairness discount should be applied to the calculated compensation of 8,132.17 TL for the plaintiff …, resulting in 7,125.57 TL in material damages and 40,000.00 TL in moral damages, and that a 5% fairness discount should be applied to the calculated compensation of 12,473. 11 TL, with a discretionary 5% reduction for fairness, resulting in 11,849.45 TL in material damages and 40,000.00 TL in moral damages, and 20,000.00 TL in moral damages for the plaintiff …; in the consolidated case, the compensation for loss of support awarded in the main case
and provided that there is no duplication in collection; for the plaintiff …, 19,260.18 TL in material damages determined by applying a 5% fairness discount to the calculated 20,273.87 TL in damages, and for the plaintiff …, 29,827.24 TL in material damages determined by applying a 5% fairness
discount, resulting in 29,827.24 TL in material compensation, was decided to be collected; the ruling was appealed by the plaintiffs’ attorney, the defendant’s attorney, and the defendant’s attorney.
1-Based on the information and documents in the file, and considering that there is no procedural or legal violation in the discussion and evaluation of the evidence relied upon in the reasoning of the court decision, it is necessary to reject the other appeals of the plaintiffs’ attorney, the defendant’s attorney, and the defendant’s attorney that fall outside the scope of the following paragraph.
2-The case concerns a claim for loss of support and moral damages due to a traffic accident.
2-The case concerns a claim for loss of support and moral damages due to a traffic accident.
Although moral damages are not a means of enrichment, when ruling on such a claim, the aim should be to alleviate, at least partially, the pain and suffering caused by the incident. Therefore, the parties’ social and economic circumstances, as well as the circumstances of the incident, should be taken into account. Considering the special cases under Article 47 of the Civil Code, a conclusion should be reached within the framework of the principles of justice and fairness. This is because Article 4 of the Civil Code stipulates that in cases where the law grants discretion, the judge shall rule according to rights and fairness. Considering the above points, it was found that the moral damages awarded were somewhat excessive, and the decision had to be overturned in order to award moral damages in accordance with fairness.
3-In the present case, although the court reduced the compensation by 5% due to contributory negligence on the part of the victim for not wearing a helmet, the reduction rate determined is low according to the established practice of our Chamber, and it is necessary to overturn the decision to reduce the compensation by 20% for contributory negligence.
4-Although the plaintiffs’ attorney requested in the petition that legal interest be awarded on the claims for moral damages from the date of the incident, the court did not rule positively or negatively on the interest claim.
4-Although the plaintiffs’ attorney requested in the petition that legal interest be awarded from the date of the incident for the claims for moral damages, the court did not render a positive or negative decision regarding the interest claim, which was deemed incorrect, and therefore,
it was necessary to decide to overturn the decision for this reason as well.
CONCLUSION: For the reasons explained in paragraph (1) above, the plaintiffs’ attorney, the defendant …’s attorney, and the defendant …’s attorney’s other appeals are rejected. For the reasons explained in paragraph (2), the defendant …’s attorney, for the reasons explained in paragraph (3), the defendant …’s attorney and the defendant …’s attorney, and the plaintiff’s counsel’s appeals for the reasons explained in paragraph 4 are accepted, and the judgment is REVERSED. The advance fee shall be returned to the appealing plaintiffs, the defendant …, and the defendant … upon request. It was unanimously decided on 01/03/2018.