Supreme Court Decision On The Amount Of Moral Damages Resulting From A Work Accident
Republic of Turkey Supreme Court 21st Civil Chamber Case No. :2013/1589
Decision No. :2013/9138
Date of Decision : 07.05.2013
COMPENSATION CLAIM – CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION FOR MORAL DAMAGES SUFFERED BY THE RELATIVES OF A WORKER WHO DIED AS A RESULT OF A WORK ACCIDENT – THE LIMIT OF COMPENSATION
SHALL BE DETERMINED ACCORDING TO ITS PURPOSE – MORAL
DAMAGES
COMPENSATION – ERRONEOUS OVERESTIMATION OF COMPENSATION – THE JUDGMENT
IS SET ASIDE
SUMMARY: The case concerns the claim for compensation for the moral damages of the relatives of a worker who died as a result of a workplace accident. The amount of money to be awarded to the claimant under the heading of moral damages, taking into account the specific circumstances, must be fair and reasonable.
This compensation serves a unique function, akin to that of compensation for damages, in that it aims to restore the claimant’s mental peace.
It is not a penalty, nor does it aim to compensate for property-related losses.
Therefore,
the limit of this compensation should be determined according to its purpose. The amount to be determined should be sufficient to achieve the desired effect of restoring the claimant’s mental peace. Therefore,
the limit of this compensation should be determined according to its purpose. The amount to be determined should be sufficient to achieve the desired sense of satisfaction in the current situation.
Since these may vary depending on each case, the judge should objectively demonstrate the reasons influencing his discretion in a manner consistent with the case.
(Law No. 4857, Art. 77) (Law No. 818, Art. 47) (YİBK 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 requested a decision ordering the payment of material and moral compensation arising from the death of the deceased as a result of a work accident.
The court decided to partially grant the request as stated in its judgment.
The judgment was appealed by the plaintiffs and the attorneys of the defendants C… A.Ş. and E… Tic. Ltd. Şti.
The appeal was also appealed by the attorney of C… A.Ş. in a hearing, and it was determined that the appeal was timely.
and the appeal was also filed by the attorney of C… Inc. with a request for a hearing. After it was determined that the appeal was filed within the time limit
and the documents in the file were reviewed based on the report prepared by the Examining Judge K G A,
and since the case regarding the appealed judgment did not fall under any of the cases listed in Article 438 of the Code of Civil Procedure
limited circumstances listed in Article 438 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the request for the Court of Cassation to review the case in a hearing
was rejected, and after considering the merits of the case, the following decision
was reached:
Decision: The case concerns the claim for compensation for moral damages by the relatives of a worker who died as a result of a work accident
.
The court dismissed the plaintiff’s case against the defendant A… A.Ş. due to withdrawal, partially accepted the plaintiff’s
case against the defendants C… A.Ş. and E… Ltd. Şti., and awarded 50,000.00 TL to the daughter of the deceased M. Ö., D. Ö.,
50,000.00 TL, her daughter K. A. 50,000.00 TL, her son O. Ö. 50,000.00 TL, her son A. Ö. 50,000.00
TL, 15,000.00 TL for his mother F. Ö., 7,000.00 TL for his brother H. D., and 7,000.00 TL for his brother R. Ö.
The court ruled that the aforementioned plaintiffs shall be jointly and severally liable for the moral damages, along with legal interest from the date of the accident, December 19, 2010,
jointly and severally from the defendants and paid to the plaintiffs, and the claim for the excess amount
is dismissed.
By examining Article 77 of the Labor Law and the relevant articles of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation,
the relationship between the defendants, the measures that should be implemented at the workplace according to its nature,
the measures the employer was required to take at the workplace, which measures were taken, which
measures were not taken, and whether the worker complied with the measures taken, among other matters,
in a manner that leaves no room for doubt or hesitation regarding the attribution and extent of fault.
It is understood that this has not been determined.
The task at hand is to submit the case file to a three-member expert panel specializing in occupational health and safety,
have the experts re-examine the matter as outlined above, evaluate all evidence together,
and make a decision based on the outcome.
According to the acceptance, it is understood that M. Ö., the father, brother, and son of the plaintiffs, died as a result of the work accident that occurred on December 19, 2010,
and that the deceased worker was 20% at fault for the accident.
According to Article 47 of the Law on Debts, the amount of money to be awarded to the right holder as moral damages, taking into account the special circumstances,
must be fair. This amount of money
has a unique quality similar to compensation that will bring moral peace to the injured party.
It is not a penalty, nor is it intended to compensate for damages related to property law. It is not a penalty, nor does it aim to compensate for damage related to property law.
Therefore, the limit of this compensation should be determined according to its purpose.
The amount to be determined should be sufficient to achieve the desired sense of satisfaction in the current situation.
Supreme Court Ruling No. 7/7 dated June 22, 1966
The reasons for the decision clearly indicate the special circumstances and conditions that may affect the amount of moral compensation to be determined.
Since these may vary from case to case, the judge must objectively and appropriately demonstrate the reasons influencing their discretion
in accordance with objective criteria in the decision.
When exercising this discretion, the judge must consider factors such as the country’s economic conditions, the parties’ social and economic
When exercising this discretion, the judge must take into account the economic conditions of the country, the social and economic
circumstances of the parties, the purchasing power of money, the degree of fault of the parties, the severity of the incident, the date of the incident, and other such characteristics
, as well as the fact that the incident arose from the employer’s failure to adequately implement worker health and safety measures,
in accordance with the evolving legal approach, it is clear that moral compensation should be determined at a level that not only provides satisfaction
but also serves as a deterrent.
(HGK 23.06.2004, 13/291-370) (HGK 23.06.2004, 13/291-370)
Given these principles, the excessive award of moral compensation in favor of the deceased worker’s children, the plaintiffs D. Ö., K. A., O. Ö., and A. Ö.,
is erroneous.
The court’s decision, rendered in writing without considering these factual and legal circumstances, is contrary to procedure and
law and constitutes grounds for reversal.
Therefore, the appellants’ and defendants’ appeals, which aim to address these issues, should be
accepted, and the judgment should be reversed.
Result: The judgment is reversed for the reasons explained above, and there is no need to examine the other appeals
at this time based on the grounds for reversal. The appeal fee shall be refunded to the appellants upon request.
The decision was made unanimously on May 7, 2013.