Motorlu taşıtlarla meydana gelen iş kazalarında hukuki sorumluluk
Yükleniyor...
Dosyalar
Tarih
2024
Yazarlar
Dergi Başlığı
Dergi ISSN
Cilt Başlığı
Yayıncı
Selçuk Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü
Erişim Hakkı
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Özet
İşveren işçinin çalışmasından maddi menfaati bulunması nedeniyle iş sağlığı ve güvenliği önlemlerine uygun hareket etmekle yükümlüdür. Yargıtay kararlarında da anlatıldığı üzere mevzuat ile belirlenen iş kurallarına uygun davranmayan işveren kusurlu sayılır. İşverenin sadece yazılı kurallara uygun hareket etmesi yeterli değildir, teknolojinin gerekli kıldığı tüm önlemlere uygun hareket etmelidir. İşverenin kusurlu kabul edilip edilmediği kusursuz sorumlu olduğu hallerde bile önem arz eder. Zira kusuru var ise işveren sorumluluktan kurtaran hallerden faydalanamaz. Kusur sorumluluğu hallerinde olduğu gibi kusursuz sorumlulukta da eylem ile zarar arasında uygun illiyet bağı bulunmazsa işveren iş kazasından sorumlu olmaz. İlliyet bağını kesen haller ise mücbir sebep ile zarar görenin veya üçüncü kişinin ağır kusuru bulunmasıdır. Kazadan işverenin sorumlu tutulması ile olayın iş kazası olarak kabul edilmesi farklı kavramlardır. Bir olayda işveren sorumlu tutulamayacak olsa bile kaza iş kazası olarak kabul edilirse işveren zarar gören ve onun ölmesi durumunda ilgililere gerekli ödemeleri yapacak ancak bunu kusuru bulunmayan kişilere rücu edemeyecektir. Mevzuatımızda işverenin iş kazasından sorumluluğuna ilişkin kusur sorumluluğu benimsenmiş iken bazı istisnai durumlarda işveren kusursuz sorumlu tutulmuştur. Kusursuz sorumluluğa en yaygın örnek işverenin araç işleten olarak sorumluluğudur. Trafikte meydana gelen kazalardan, işverenin araç işleten olarak sorumlu olduğu haller trafik kazaları ile sınırlıdır. Trafikte meydana gelen her kaza trafik kazası değildir. Trafik kazası niteliğinde olmayan kazalarda işverenin kusur sorumluluğu vardır. Çalışmamızda motorlu taşıtlarla meydana gelen kazalar incelenmiştir.
The employer is obligated to adhere to occupational health and safety measures due to the material benefits derived from the employee's work. As explained in the decisions of the Supreme Court, an employer who does not comply with the work rules set by legislation is considered at fault. It is not sufficient for the employer to only comply with written rules; they must also take all necessary precautions required by technology. Whether the employer is deemed at fault is significant even in cases where they are liable without fault. If the employer is at fault, they cannot benefit from circumstances that would absolve them from liability. Just like in cases of fault liability, if there is no appropriate causal link between the act and the damage in cases of strict liability, the employer is not responsible for the work accident. Instances that break the causal link include force majeure or the serious fault of the injured party or a third party. The employer being held responsible for an accident and the incident being recognized as a work accident are distinct concepts. Even if an employer cannot be held responsible for an incident, if the accident is recognized as a work accident, the employer must make the necessary payments to the injured party and their dependents in case of death, but cannot seek reimbursement from those who are not at fault. While our legislation has adopted fault liability for employers in case of work accidents, in some exceptional cases, the employer is held strictly liable. The most common example of strict liability is the employer's responsibility as a vehicle operator. The cases where the employer is held liable as the operator of a vehicle for accidents occurring in traffic are limited to traffic accidents. Not every accident occurring in traffic constitutes a traffic accident. In accidents that do not qualify as traffic accidents, the employer is liable based on fault. In our study, accidents involving motor vehicles have been examined.
The employer is obligated to adhere to occupational health and safety measures due to the material benefits derived from the employee's work. As explained in the decisions of the Supreme Court, an employer who does not comply with the work rules set by legislation is considered at fault. It is not sufficient for the employer to only comply with written rules; they must also take all necessary precautions required by technology. Whether the employer is deemed at fault is significant even in cases where they are liable without fault. If the employer is at fault, they cannot benefit from circumstances that would absolve them from liability. Just like in cases of fault liability, if there is no appropriate causal link between the act and the damage in cases of strict liability, the employer is not responsible for the work accident. Instances that break the causal link include force majeure or the serious fault of the injured party or a third party. The employer being held responsible for an accident and the incident being recognized as a work accident are distinct concepts. Even if an employer cannot be held responsible for an incident, if the accident is recognized as a work accident, the employer must make the necessary payments to the injured party and their dependents in case of death, but cannot seek reimbursement from those who are not at fault. While our legislation has adopted fault liability for employers in case of work accidents, in some exceptional cases, the employer is held strictly liable. The most common example of strict liability is the employer's responsibility as a vehicle operator. The cases where the employer is held liable as the operator of a vehicle for accidents occurring in traffic are limited to traffic accidents. Not every accident occurring in traffic constitutes a traffic accident. In accidents that do not qualify as traffic accidents, the employer is liable based on fault. In our study, accidents involving motor vehicles have been examined.
Açıklama
Anahtar Kelimeler
Motorlu Taşıt, Sorumluluk, İş Kazası, Hukuki Sorumluluk, Motor Vehicle, Responsibility, Work Accident, Legal Liability
Kaynak
WoS Q Değeri
Scopus Q Değeri
Cilt
Sayı
Künye
Turan, E. N. (2024). Motorlu taşıtlarla meydana gelen iş kazalarında hukuki sorumluluk. (Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Selçuk Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Konya.
