COMPENSATION CASE FOR TRAFFIC ACCIDENT DUE TO A LOGAR COVER
In the case; from the examination of the case file and its annexes, it is seen that due to the loose logar cover, it dislodged during the passage over the vehicle and damaged the lower parts of the vehicle and the loose logar cover in the middle of the road caused the accident.
With the interim decisions dated 19.1.2007 and 21.3.2007, the Court asked the plaintiff whether the vehicle damaged in the case was repaired or not, and if it was repaired, it was requested to submit a certified copy of the invoice and expenditure documents regarding the repair costs to the Court, but the claim for pecuniary compensation was rejected on the grounds that the requested information and documents were not submitted by the plaintiff within the given period of time. 06.2006 dated letter of the defendant administration, it was stated that the lock of the manhole cover was changed on 16.05.2005 upon the request from the accident scene and that the cover locks were broken, and it was understood that the plaintiff applied to Konya 1st Civil Court of Peace after the accident and had the fault rates and damages determined.
For this reason, the defendant administration is responsible for the maintenance, repair and supervision of the log covers that provide the connection of the structures related to the collection of rain or waste water with the road; Accordingly, since it is clear that the administration that does not perform maintenance and repair of the lids in the face of the fact that the pins of the logar cover causing the accident are not tightened in a way that endangers traffic safety, the administration that does not perform maintenance and repair of the covers has committed a service defect due to the incomplete public service, the plaintiff’s request for financial compensation should be compensated at the rate of the defendant administration’s defect determined in the judicial jurisdiction, while there was no legal accuracy in the contrary Court decision given on the grounds that the plaintiff did not submit a certified copy of the invoice and expenditure documents regarding the repair costs to the Court (Council of State 15. Chamber – Decision: 2016/3486).
COMPENSATION CASE DUE TO PERSONAL FAULT OF THE DOCTOR (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE)
On the date of the incident, D.A. Ö. was 24 weeks pregnant, her 5-6 months old child was killed by cutting the umbilical cord in the abdomen through abortion and then was taken out by using an instrument, the death of the deceased occurred as a result of internal bleeding due to uterine rupture caused by uterine rupture during the disintegration of the foetus with the instrument, and there was a causal link between the physician’s action and death, and it was stated that there was no medical necessity for the abortion of the foetus and termination of the pregnancy, in this case, the doctor S. K. committed the offence of consensual abortion causing the death of a woman under Article 99/4 of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237, and it is also established by the Court’s decision that the deceased D.A.Ö. After being examined by the doctor, he carried the surgical intervention that he should have performed in his office to the hospital, in other words, the surgery was performed at a time when the doctor was on annual leave and was not a public service provider, and no information was given to the Chief Physician of the Hospital for the surgery, therefore, the administration cannot be held responsible for the surgical intervention (removal of a foetus with a gestation period of more than 10 weeks), which was performed during the period when the administrative agent was on leave, without informing the administration, and the subject of which constitutes a crime, in other words, the damage did not occur while the public official was using his authority derived from public power, The administrative court decision to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds that there is no appropriate causal link between the doctor’s action and the damage incurred in terms of the administration, that is, there is a personal fault of the doctor, therefore, it has been concluded that there is no service defect of the administration and the incident does not require compensation for the administration, on the other hand, it is clear that a lawsuit for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages can be filed against those concerned in the judicial jurisdiction due to personal fault is in accordance with the law (Council of State 15. Chamber – Decision: 2016/2803).
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking