Burden of Proof in Compensation Cases: Workplace Accidents and Traffic Accidents

1. Introduction

One of the most fundamental problems in compensation cases is determining which party bears the burden of proof. Misunderstanding the burden of proof can even lead to the rightful party losing the case.

Workplace accidents and traffic accidents , the two most common types of lawsuits in Turkish law , share similarities and differences in terms of the burden of proof. This article will examine the burden of proof, evidence, and Supreme Court decisions in detail for both types of lawsuits .

2. General Legal Framework

2.1. Legal Basis

Article 190 of the Code of Civil Procedure: The burden of proof rests with the claimant.
Turkish Code of Obligations, Article 50: The injured party shall prove the damage suffered and the causal link.
Turkish Code of Obligations, Article 51: The judge may award compensation according to equity.
Turkish Code of Obligations, Article 66: Employer's responsibility.
Article 85 of the Turkish Traffic Law: Strict Liability of the Motor Vehicle Operator.
Law No. 5510, Article 13: Definition of occupational accident.

2.2. The General Principle of the Supreme Court

⚖️ Supreme Court Grand Chamber, Case No. 2018/15-432, Decision No. 2019/789.

“In compensation cases, the injured party bears the burden of proving the damage and the causal link. However, the employer or vehicle operator cannot be absolved of liability unless they prove their innocence.”

3. Burden of Proof in Workplace Accidents

3.1. The Plaintiff's (Employee's) Obligation

That the accident occurred at the workplace or during the course of work,
That damage has occurred (disability, death, medical expenses),
The causal link between the damage and the workplace accident.

3.2. The Defendant's (Employer's) Obligation

He stated that he had taken occupational safety measures
That it is perfect,
There is a force majeure event (earthquake, flood, etc.),
The accident was entirely due to the worker's gross negligence.

⚖️ Supreme Court 21st Civil Chamber, Case No. 2016/7654, Decision No. 2017/9876.

"For an employer to be absolved of responsibility in a workplace accident, it is not enough to simply state that the accident occurred outside the workplace; they must prove with concrete evidence that they took the necessary precautions."

3.3. Evidence

SGK workplace accident investigation reports,
Witness statements (colleagues),
Occupational safety expert reports,
Labor inspector reports,
Hospital records,
Expert examination.

⚖️ Supreme Court 10th Civil Chamber, Case No. 2017/4321, Decision No. 2018/6543.

"The Social Security Institution's (SGK) workplace accident report constitutes strong evidence in determining the employer's responsibility."

4. Burden of Proof in Traffic Accidents

4.1. Liability of the Claimant (Injured Party)

That a traffic accident occurred,
Damages (vehicle damage, injury, death, loss of income),
The causal link between the damage and the accident.

4.2. Liability of the Defendant (Operator / Insurance Company)

Its perfection,
Force majeure (e.g., accident during an earthquake),
The gross negligence of a third party,
Situation outside the scope of the policy.

⚖️ Supreme Court 17th Civil Chamber, Case No. 2019/5432, Decision No. 2020/8765.

"In order for the vehicle owner to be absolved of liability in a traffic accident, they must prove their innocence with concrete evidence. The presumption of fault works in favor of the victim."

4.3. Evidence

Traffic accident report,
Camera and photo recordings,
Witness statements,
Police reports,
Expert actuarial reports,
Hospital reports.

⚖️ Supreme Court 17th Civil Chamber, Case No. 2015/7654, Decision No. 2016/9876.

"Actuarial reports are the most reliable method of calculating compensation for loss of support."

5. Comparison of the Burden of Proof in Work Accidents and Traffic Accidents

Element	Workplace Accident Compensation	Traffic Accident Compensation
Plaintiff's Proof	The accident happened at the workplace; the damage is causal	An accident occurred, damage was caused, causal link
Defendant's Proof	Employer: that precautions were taken, that it was flawless	Operator: guarantees faultlessness, insurer: non-policy situation
Presumption of Fault	against the employer	against the operator
Evidence	Social Security Institution report, witness testimony, occupational safety report	Traffic report, camera footage, expert report
Fairness Compensation	It is applied if the disability rate is not clear	This applies if the loss of income cannot be fully calculated

6. Typical Disputes in Practice

6.1. In Workplace Accidents

The employer's claim that "we took precautions" remains unsubstantiated
The discussion of SGK (Social Security Institution) reports in court,
The degree of fault of the worker.

6.2. In Traffic Accidents

Erroneous entries in the accident report,
Insurance companies' defenses regarding policy exclusions,
Claims of force majeure and third-party fault.

⚖️ Supreme Court 17th Civil Chamber, Case No. 2018/2345, Decision No. 2019/5432.

"The insurance company cannot be absolved of liability unless it proves that the incident was outside the scope of the policy."

7. Comparative Law

Germany (BGB & StVG): The employer and operator are strictly liable and must provide proof of exoneration.
Switzerland (OR & SVG): Similar regulations to Turkish law; employers are responsible for workplace accidents, and vehicle owners are responsible for traffic accidents.
France (Code Civil): The presumption of fault is in favor of the victim.
England (Negligence Law): Employer's "duty of care" obligation; insurance system is strong in traffic accidents.
ECHR (Öneryıldız/Turkey): The state's failure to take workplace safety measures constituted a violation of the right to life.

8. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

1. Who bears the burden of proof in a workplace accident?
→ The worker proves the accident, and the employer proves that they took precautions.

2. Who is held responsible in a traffic accident?
→ The vehicle operator is strictly liable.

3. In what situations will the insurance company not pay?
→ If there is an event not covered by the policy and they can prove it.

4. What are the consequences of a worker's fault in a workplace accident?
→ It reduces the compensation rate.

5. How is causality proven in a traffic accident?
→ Expert report, accident report, witness testimony.

6. Can the expert report be challenged?
→ Yes, an additional report can be requested.

7. How is compensation for moral damages proven?
→ With evidence of violation of personal rights (photographs, witnesses, reports).

8. What is the statute of limitations?
→ 2 years according to Article 72 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, in any case 10 years.

9. Is the employer's defense of "I took precautions" sufficient?
→ No, proof with documents and reports is required.

10. In a traffic accident, if the vehicle owner (operator) is not the same person as the driver, who is responsible?
→ The vehicle owner (operator) is responsible.

9. Conclusion

In compensation cases related to workplace and traffic accidents, the burden of proof is structured to protect the victim. In workplace accidents, the worker bears the responsibility of proving the accident, while the employer is obligated to prove that precautions were taken. In traffic accidents, the injured party bears the responsibility of proving the accident and the damages suffered, while the vehicle operator cannot be absolved of responsibility unless they prove their innocence.

⚖️ The Supreme Court's precedents consistently provide broad interpretations in favor of victims in both areas, prioritizing the protection of the injured party through presumptions of fault.

Evidence, causal link, workplace accident, burden of proof, employer liability, strict liability, insurance law, compensation claim, traffic accident, Supreme Court decisions.

Single Blog Title