Compensation Based On Animal Owner’s Liability – Court Of Cassation Decision
T.C. JUDICIARY
3. HD
2015/4561 Esas 2016/2442 Karar 23.2.2016 Date
CASE : As a result of the trial of the compensation lawsuit between the parties, the judgment for the acceptance of the lawsuit was appealed by the defendants within the time limit; after it was decided to accept the appeal petition, the papers in the file were read and considered accordingly:
DECISION : In the plaintiff’s petition, the plaintiff stated that the crops he cultivated in the immovable properties numbered 54 and 658 parcels located in the Ölezi and Urganlar locality of Ulukışla Town, Altunhisar District, were damaged by the sheep flocks belonging to the defendants, whereupon a determination was made with the decision of Bor Civil Court of Peace numbered 2013/8 d.work and the damage to the immovable property numbered 54 parcel was determined as 1. 048 TL and 1.761 TL in the immovable property numbered 658 parcel and demanded and sued for a decision to jointly and severally collect a total of 3.492 TL compensation from the defendants together with legal interest as the cost of crop damage and the cost of the determination file.
In their reply petition, the defendants stated that they did not accept the claim that they damaged the plaintiff’s fields and requested the dismissal of the lawsuit.
The court decided to accept the lawsuit and to take the product damage of 2.809 TL from the defendants and give it to the plaintiff, and to take the fees and expenses incurred in the file of the Civil Court of Peace numbered 2013/8 different business from the defendants and give them to the plaintiff, and the judgment was appealed by the defendants.
According to the writings in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based, the legal grounds and especially the appreciation of the evidence, the other appellate objections are not relevant.
The case is about the claim for compensation based on the responsibility of the animal owner.
In the concrete case, the plaintiff party states that the crops in two different immovable properties, which are in his own use and located in different locations, have been damaged, and the plaintiff witnesses who were heard within the scope of the file, both in their statements in court and in the minutes on the subject they signed at the scene of the incident, stated that they made separate inspections on both immovable properties and that both defendants personally told them that they accepted the damage to different immovable properties.
On the contrary, while the court should determine separately for which immovable each defendant should be held responsible for the damages incurred, and make a judgment accordingly, it was not deemed correct to hold both defendants jointly and severally liable for all damages, and this issue required a reversal.
CONCLUSION : It is inappropriate to establish a judgment as written without taking into account the principles explained above, and since the appellate objections are appropriate for these reasons, it was unanimously decided on 23.02.2016 that the judgment shall be VACATED in accordance with Article 428 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the prepaid appeal fee shall be returned to the appellant if requested.