Without investigating whether the traffic accident occurred exclusively under the influence of alcohol, “the driver cannot be held responsible just because he was drunk.”
It is mandatory for the court to obtain a report on this issue from the expert panel, including a neurologist and traffic expert, and discuss this issue.
Again, according to the Traffic Insurance General Conditions B.4-d clause, in order for the Insurance Company to be able to recourse the payments made to the injured parties due to the accident caused by a drunk driver, “The accident must occur exclusively under the influence of alcohol.”
Even though the driver was drunk, if another factor caused the accident, the driver cannot be held responsible just because he was drunk. The Precedent Decision of the Supreme Court on this matter is presented in the annex.
Supreme Court 17th HD. 12/04/2012 day, 2011/6139 Merits 2012/4605Decision
Claiming that in the main and combined file, compensation was paid to the people injured in the accident that occurred while his client was driving under the influence of alcohol, the plaintiff’s attorney requested and sued for the collection of 51,054.00 TL in the main file and 2,886.00 TL in the combined file from the defendant.
The defendant’s attorney argued for the rejection of the case.
According to the claim, defense and adopted expert report, the court decided to partially accept the case, collect 40,843.20 TL in the main case and 2,308.80 TL in the combined case, and collect the verdict from the defendant. The verdict was appealed by the defendant’s attorney.
1- Based on the articles in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based, the compelling reasons and the absence of any inaccuracy in the evaluation of the evidence, the defendant’s attorney’s other appeal objections outside the scope of the following paragraph had to be rejected.
2- The case is about the request for recourse collection of the compensation paid by the traffic compulsory liability traffic insurer to those who suffered damage outside of the lawsuit. In paragraph B.4d of the Traffic Insurance General Conditions, it is regulated that the payment made by the insurer to the injured parties due to the damage incurred after the accident caused by the driver’s alcoholism can be recoursed from the insured. However, for the condition of recourse to occur, alcohol must exclusively cause the accident. In the concrete incident, it is understood that the driver of the vehicle outside the case was drunk. Since the court found that the amount of alcohol consumed by the driver did not directly affect the outcome, it was not deemed appropriate to make a decision based on the report to be received from the expert panel, including a neurologist and traffic expert, as to whether the accident occurred exclusively under the influence of alcohol.
3- According to the acceptance, the amount of compensation that can be recoursed can only be up to the actual damage of the injured parties. The defendant argued that the passengers injured in the accident were transported for sake. Since carrying souvenirs is not for any benefit, it is accepted and settled both in the doctrine and in the Supreme Court of Appeals jurisprudence that an appropriate deduction from compensation should be made in such transports in accordance with Article 43 of the Code of Obligations. In this respect, by focusing on this defense, it was not deemed appropriate for the court to decide whether the transportation was for sake or not, the closeness of the parties, if so, whose desire and for what purpose the transportation was done for sake, that is, without taking into account, researching and discussing the special circumstances of the incident.
4- Additionally, the defendant argued that the injured persons were jointly at fault. If it is accepted that the injured persons were jointly at fault, it should be decided to collect recourse from the defendant for the amount to be found as a result of the discretionary deduction from the actual damage determined. However, it is not clear how the compensation awarded by the court is determined based on the amount of compensation and at what rate the reduction is made. The decision had to be overturned in this respect as well.