Traffic Accident, Wearing a Helmet Should Be Reduced by 20% – Supreme Court Decision

T.C
SUPREME
17.law office
MAIN NUMBER:2017/5716
DECISION NO:2018/1495
DECISION DATE: 01/03/2018
COURT : Court of First Instance

>> SINCE THERE IS A MUTUAL DEFECT DUE TO A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, NOT WEARING A HELMET, IT WILL BE NECESSARY TO MAKE A MUTUAL DEFECT DISCOUNT OF AT LEAST 20% ACCORDING TO ESTABLISHED APPLICATIONS.

At the end of the trial of the compensation case between the parties; within the period of the provision on partial acceptance of the case due to the reasons written in the Decisionthe plaintiffs’ attorney, the defendant …. the attorney and the defendant … the file on the appeal by the attorney
examined, considered necessary:

decision

The plaintiffs attorney; in the real case the defendant’s driver, combined liability insurance in the case, the plaintiff in support of the accident that occurred as a passenger in a car being found support and explain 5.000,00 TL’er their parents for monetary compensation for 50.000,00 each, for his brother 25.000,00 TL non-pecuniary damages with legal interest from the date of the event requested that a decision be given on the collection.

The defendants have argued for the dismissal of the case.

By the court, to warrant reversal, and collected the evidence in the original trial, the plaintiff calculated for 8.132,17 TL compensation from takdiren 5% discount by 7.125 equity,57 TL material, 40.000,00 TL for non-pecuniary damages for the plaintiff calculated 12.473,11 TL compensation from takdiren 5% discount by 11.849 equity,45 TL material, 40.000,00 TL for non-pecuniary damages for the plaintiff 20.000,00 TL spiritual for collection of compensation, combined in the case dominated in terms of the main case, the compensation of the lack of support
provided that there is no repetition in the collection with; 19.260,18 TL financial compensation, which is determined by making a 5% equity deduction out of the 20.273,87 TL compensation calculated for the plaintiff …, 5% equity out of the 31.397,14 TL compensation calculated for the plaintiff …
it was decided to collect the financial compensation of 29.827,24 TL, which was determined by deducting; the judgment, the plaintiffs’ attorney, the defendant …. the attorney and the defendant … have been appealed by the attorney.

1-According to the information and documents contained in the file, the fact that there is no aspect contrary to the procedure and law in discussing and evaluating the evidence based on the justification of the court decision, the plaintiffs’ attorney, the defendant …. the attorney and the defendant … the scope of the following subparagraph of the attorney
it was necessary to decide on the rejection of other appeals that remained outside.

2-The case is related to the deprivation of support due to a traffic accident and the request for moral compensation.

Although moral compensation is not a means of enrichment, it should be aimed to partially eliminate the pain and suffering caused by the incident when establishing a decision on the request in this direction, and therefore, taking into account the social and economic situation of the parties, as well as the way the incident occurred, B.K.’s 47. taking into account the special circumstances in the article, a conclusion should be reached within the framework of the rules of rights and dignity. Because, M.K’s 4.in the article, it is stipulated that the judge will rule according to the rights and integrity in cases where the law gives the right of discretion. Considering the above-mentioned issues, it was seen that the moral indemnities appreciated were somewhat excessive and the decision had to be overturned in order to rule on moral indemnities that were fair.

3-In a concrete case, although a discount of 5% has been made by the court because the support does not wear a helmet because it has a mutual defect, the discount rate appreciated is less than the established practice of our apartment, and a 20% mutual defect discount is to be made
it was necessary to decide to overturn the decision.

4-Although the plaintiffs’ attorney has requested that the legal interest be decided from the date of the incident in terms of moral compensation claims with the lawsuit petition, it is not considered correct for the court not to make a positive– negative decision in terms of the interest claim, therefore the decision
it was also necessary to decide on its deterioration.

CONCLUSION: For the reasons described in paragraph (1) above, the plaintiffs’ attorney, the defendant …. the rejection of the other appeals of the attorney and the defendant … attorney, the reasons explained in paragraph (2) of the defendant … attorney, the reasons explained in paragraph (3) of the defendant … attorney and the defendant …. if the plaintiffs’ attorney accepts the appeals of the plaintiffs’ attorney for the reasons explained in paragraph 4 and the judgment is overturned, the plaintiffs who appeal the advance fee upon request, the defendant …. it was unanimously decided on 01/03/2018 to be returned to the defendant with …………. on the day of 01/03/2018.

You can read our articles and petition examples by clicking here.