It Is Mandatory To Investigate Whether A Traffic Accident Was Caused By The Influence Of Alcohol
Without investigating whether the traffic accident occurred solely due to the influence of alcohol, “the driver cannot be held liable merely because he was under the influence of alcohol.”
It is mandatory for the court to obtain a report on this matter from a panel of experts—including a neurologist and a traffic expert—and to discuss this issue.
Furthermore, according to Article B.4-d of the General Conditions of Motor Vehicle Insurance, for the Insurance Company to be able to seek reimbursement from the insured for payments made to the injured parties due to an accident caused by an intoxicated driver, “the accident must have occurred solely due to the influence of alcohol.”
If another factor contributed to the accident despite the driver being under the influence of alcohol, the driver’s liability cannot be attributed solely to being under the influence of alcohol. A Supreme Court precedent on this matter is provided in the appendix.
Supreme Court of Appeals, 17th Civil Chamber, April 12, 2012, Case No. 2011/6139, Decision No. 2012/4605
The plaintiff’s attorney, in both the main and consolidated cases, claimed that compensation had been paid to the injured parties in the accident involving the insured vehicle driven under the influence of alcohol, and sought a ruling in the main case for 51,054.00 TL, and 2,886.00 TL in the consolidated case, from the defendant.
The defendant’s counsel argued for the dismissal of the case.
Based on the allegations, defenses, and the expert report adopted by the court, the court partially granted the claim, ordering the defendant to pay 40,843.20 TL in the main case and 2,308.80 TL in the consolidated case; the judgment was appealed by the defendant’s counsel.
1- Based on the documents in the file, the evidence supporting the decision, the compelling reasons, and the absence of any error in the assessment of the evidence, the defendant’s counsel’s other appeals outside the scope of the following provision must be dismissed.
2- The case concerns a claim for the recovery of compensation paid by the mandatory traffic liability insurer to third parties who suffered damages. Article B.4d of the General Conditions of Motor Vehicle Insurance provides that the insurer may seek reimbursement from the insured for payments made to injured parties resulting from damages caused by an accident resulting from the driver’s intoxication. However, for the condition of reimbursement to apply, the alcohol must have been the sole cause of the accident. In the present case, it is understood that the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident was under the influence of alcohol. The court deemed it inappropriate to base its ruling on a report from an expert panel—including a neurologist and a traffic expert—regarding whether the accident occurred solely due to the influence of alcohol, as the court found that the driver’s blood alcohol level was not directly causative of the outcome.
3- Even under the accepted view, the amount of compensation that can be recovered is limited to the actual damages suffered by the injured parties. The defendant argued that the passengers injured in the accident were transported as a favor. Since such transportation is not performed in exchange for a benefit, it is established in both legal doctrine and Supreme Court precedents that an appropriate reduction in compensation should be made in accordance with Article 43 of the Turkish Civil Code. Accordingly, it was deemed incorrect for the court to render a decision without examining, investigating, or discussing whether the transportation was for personal favor, the relationship between the parties, and—if so—whose request it was and for what purpose, i.e., without considering the specific circumstances of the case.
4- Additionally, the defendant argued that the injured individuals were partially at fault. If it is accepted that the injured parties were partially at fault, a decision must be made to recover the amount resulting from the discretionary reduction applied to the determined actual damages from the defendant. However, it is unclear on what basis the compensation amount was determined and at what rate the reduction was applied. The decision must also be reversed on this ground.