The 10th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, in its decision dated May 30, 1995, numbered 4641/5019, stated, “For an incident to be considered a work-related accident, there must be an employment contract between the victim and the employer, as defined in the Code of Obligations.” According to the Court of Cassation, an accident suffered by a person “not considered an insured person” under Article 5510/6 cannot be considered a work-related accident.
Suicide is the intentional and deliberate act of self-inflicted suicide, taking one’s own life. Suicide by an insured worker at work is considered a work-related accident according to court decisions. Indeed, in light of the decisions of the Social Security Institution and the courts, it is clear that such incidents are considered work-related accidents. In this case, whether the worker intentionally took their own life or, more accurately, did not take their own life voluntarily is irrelevant. The incident, occurring at the workplace, is considered a work-related accident. Among the criteria for considering a suicide as a workplace accident, the fact that it occurred due to work is irrelevant. Here, only suicide is mentioned, and the cause is not investigated. The Supreme Court of Appeals has also clearly and consistently recognized in its rulings that workplace suicide is considered a workplace accident.
Circular No. 2008/108, on the Applications of Social Security and General Health Insurance Law No. 5510 Regarding Short-Term Insurance Branches, also classifies workplace suicide as a workplace accident. “Incidents occurring while the insured is at work must be considered workplace accidents regardless of whether they are related to the work performed,” it states. In this regard, insured individuals who fall while walking in the yard, sprain their ankle while playing football during their break, fall while picking fruit from a fruit tree in the garden, cut their hand while eating, poison themselves from a stove while relaxing in the break room, commit suicide at work, drown in a pool within the workplace, have an accident while visiting colleagues at work while on paid leave, and accidents involving employees in vehicles are considered work-related accidents.
The employer’s liability for accidents is limited to gross negligence on the part of the injured party. If the employee’s own conduct caused the severance of the causal link and completely severed the causal link, gross negligence may be considered. If the employee fails to exercise the most basic, simple, and ordinary care expected of them during the performance of their work, this conduct extinguishes the employer’s liability. Even if the employee’s negligent conduct does not completely sever the causal link, a common cause-and-effect relationship can be cited, and a reduction in compensation can be considered.
Therefore, the connection between the work-related accident, the commission of the act, and the damage is severed. Therefore, since the employer cannot be held liable for the damages suffered by the workplace accident, compensation cannot be claimed from him.
RELATED COURT OF APPEALS DECISION
Court of Appeals, 10th Civil Chamber, July 5, 2004, Date: 2004/4465, Date: 2004/6425
‘…The case arises from the incident in which F.K., an insured employee of the Institution, became depressed while working at his workplace, left work near the end of his shift, and hanged himself in the workers’ dormitory allocated to him on the attic of the workplace. This is alleged to have been a workplace accident. … Therefore, while an employer has an obligation to take the necessary precautions for the safety, physical and mental health of the insured employee under his responsibility, this is not always mandatory. It should be noted that even in situations where no such relationship or connection exists, an incident can still be considered a workplace accident. For example, if a suicide occurs at work, even if the incident occurs solely at work, even if the suicide is related to the work performed by the insured person and is not due to the employer’s fault, the incident is still considered a work accident, as per Article 110 of Law No. 506. However, in this case, since no causal link can be established between the events, the work, or the employer, the employer and their successors cannot be held liable to the Institution.