Abstract:

Operator may have contractual and strict liability because of damages that third parties suffer in consequence of being operated of rail-loading equipment. Strict liability is named as risk liability/tort liability based upon extracontractual principles. Besides, it is possible that passengers, between whom and carrier there is a conveyance relationship, appeal to the responsibility of carrier comparing with provisions of tort liability because of damages which rail-loading equipment causes. In such a case, competition of contractual and strict liability provisions is in question. Thereby, sufferer may appeal to contractual and strict liability provisions in case of meeting the conditions. Under the abrogated Code of Obligations, the legal characteristic of responsibility was open to dispute in doctrine. Because, there was not a specific Code or a common risk liability provision implemented to strict liability of operator in the face of damages of passengers and third parties because of being operated of rail-loading equipment. These discussions were connected with if risk liability is a rule or an exception. In the event of considering risk liability of an exception, it is not become unavoidable that different wrongful outcomes may show up for the reason that there is no regulation for suchlike events. So as to resolve this injustice, different comments of doctrine and Supreme Court decisions about the strict liability of operator in the face of damages of passengers and third parties because of being operated of rail-loading equipment are on the carpet

Keywords: