Özet:

Highway Traffic Act Art. 85/1 stipulates dangerous liability, a strict liability regime, for the damage arising from the operation of motor vehicle. Insurance company is liable up to a certain amount for the damage that falls withing the scope of Highway Traffic Act Art. 85/1. Insurance company cannot claim for a reduction in the amount of compensation on the ground that the driver/operator of the vehicle is not at fault/mild fault. It is not only meaningless for insurance companies to claim that the driver is not at fault, but also declaring that the driver is at fault with a certain rate (30-40-50%) is nothing but the disclosure of additional fault. Additional fault is not a reason for reduction in compensation, on the contrary, it is an element that eliminates such reduction depending on the gravity of the fault. Contributory fault, on the other hand, may constitute a reason for reduction in compensation for the liability of the insurance company arising from the operation of the motor vehicle, depending on the gravity of contributory fault and other conditions sought in the law. The insurance company demanding a reduction in compensation based on contributory fault has the burden to prove it. As highlighted in the jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation, contributory fault is taken into account ex officio by the judge (or the arbitrator) because contributory fault may either remove the responsibility (and the right to compensation in this context) in cases where it interrupts the causal link, or may limit the right to compensation as a factor for reduction in compensation.

Anahtar Kelimeler: