Loss of Life/Injury and Seafarer Claims: Turkish Practice at the Intersection of Labor Law and Maritime Law

Seafarer deaths and injuries are more complex than "classic" workplace accident cases. This is because the same incident is intertwined with various aspects the seafarer's employment relationship (Maritime Labor Law/wage claims), shipowner/operator liability, marine insurance (especially P&I), international elements (foreign flag-foreign employer-arbitration clause) , and even limitations of liability (LLMC/TTK system) .

This article examines the most frequently raised claims, liability disputes, and procedural-evidence strategies in cases of seafarer death/injury in Turkey, from a practical perspective, through the "intersection of labor law and maritime law"

---

1) Seafarer status in Türkiye: Why isn't it handled like a "regular worker" case?

The main difference from a seafarer's perspective is that the employment relationship is often:

• expedition-based,

• international,

• Captain's instructions and ISM/SMS discipline,

• It is surrounded by port state control (PSC) / classification / flag state regulations .
  

Therefore, a single event can simultaneously transform into the following headlines:

• Compensation for material and moral damages due to workplace accidents .

• Compensation for loss of support due to death + moral damages .

• Wage-related labor claims (wages, overtime, leave, seniority, etc.),

• Social Security Institution processes and recourse discussions,

• P&I coverage, policy notifications, bookings,

• Objections regarding applicable law/jurisdiction/arbitration due to the international element ,

• donor liability and funding scenario.

---

2) Regulatory map: Which rules work together?

2.1 Maritime Labor Law (854): The “special” regime of the employment relationship

In many cases, seafarers' employment contracts are governed by the Maritime Labor Law No. 854 (including topics such as wages, termination, seniority, subsistence, and repatriation).

2.2 Labor Courts Law (7036): Distinction between jurisdiction, authority and mediation

Two critical provisions in practice:

• Exception to mandatory mediation: In cases involving claims for material and moral damages arising from work-related accidents/occupational diseases , and related determination/objection/recourse lawsuits, mediation is not a prerequisite for filing a lawsuit .

• Jurisdiction: In workplace accident compensation cases, the court of the place where the accident/damage occurred, as well as the court of the injured party's place of residence, has jurisdiction.

Practical conclusion: The "mediation first" approach in seafarer cases is not appropriate for every claim; an exception is explicitly regulated for workplace accident compensation

2.3 Turkish Code of Obligations (6098) and general principles of compensation

In cases of bodily harm and death, claims for material compensation, moral damages, and loss of support are often structured according to the general liability logic of the Turkish Code of Obligations (fault-causation-damage).

2.4 Layer of maritime law: Limitation of liability (LLMC/TTK system)

Turkey has adopted a system in the LLMC 1976 and 1996 Protocols regarding the limitation of liability for maritime claims; in practice, this can transform into a strategy for the shipowner/operator to benefit from the limit and even establish a fund with respect to specific maritime claims .

Especially in death/injury claims, the discussion of "limits" can fundamentally change the financial value and strategy of the case.

2.5 International standards: MLC 2006 (Maritime Labour Convention)

The fact that Türkiye ratified MLC 2006 and that this ratification was published in the Official Gazette is frequently used as a reference in discussions about maritime employment and minimum working/living standards for seafarers.

---

3) Type of incident: "Workplace accident," "maritime accident," or both?

In Turkish practice, one event occurs simultaneously:

• Since it arises from the employment relationship the work accident (employer responsibility/social security processes),

• Because it is related to maritime operations, it may constitute a maritime incident (safety of navigation, technical operation, captain's instructions, PSC/classification)
  

This dual character defines the lines of defense and assertion:

• The employer/operator often tries to frame the incident as a technical operation/maritime risk/third-party fault

• The claimant, on the other hand, bases their liability citing the employer's duty of supervision, lack of training and instruction, failure to provide appropriate equipment/PPE, inadequate shift and fatigue management, and insufficient risk analysis.

---

4) Seafarer's claim set: How to establish an injury and death file?

4.1 Main claims in case of injury

• Treatment expenses (including items not covered by SGK),

• temporary disability ,

• permanent disability/incapacity ,

• Caregiver/assistant expenses, prosthetic/device expenses,

• Moral compensation.

The most critical point in maritime injury cases: The disability rate and loss of earning capacity calculation may differ depending on whether the victim is a "land worker"; ship class, job description, and voyage conditions (shift/certification) all have an effect.

4.2 Main claims in case of death

• Compensation for loss of support (for spouse, child, parent, etc.),

• Funeral and burial expenses,

• Moral compensation for relatives .

In the precedents of the Supreme Court of Appeals, there are examples of decisions concerning claims for loss of support and moral damages due to the death of a seafarer; such examples show that these claims are established not only theoretically but also practically.

---

5) Who might be held responsible? The "employer" is not always the sole party responsible

5.1 Distinction between employer/owner/operator

The employer (crew manning company) in a seafarer's employment contract, the ship's owner, the ship operator, and sometimes the bareboat charterer/manager structure may differ. This distinction weakens the case in terms of standing and proof if the correct defendant is not identified

5.2 Third parties

• Port/terminal operator,

• Subcontractor teams,

• Pilotage/tugboat operation,

• Maintenance and repair companies,

• Actors such as equipment manufacturers (in product liability disputes) may also be added to the chain of responsibility depending on the nature of the event
  

5.3 The role of the Social Security Institution (payments and recourse)

The Social Security Institution (SGK) makes payments such as temporary/permanent income and death benefits in cases where an occupational accident is recognized; however, recourse disputes against the employer take place in the background of the case. This layer, in particular, fuels the "fault percentage" battle: because the percentage of fault affects both the compensation and the risk of recourse.

---

6) The "game changer" of maritime law: Limitation of liability and funding strategy

In maritime law, the right of the shipowner/operator to limit liability for certain types of claims adds a new axis of defense to a case proceeding according to the logic of workplace accidents. Studies on Turkey's affiliation with the LLMC 1976 and 1996 Protocols reveal that this mechanism can be invoked in practice.

What happens in practice?

• The defendant might argue, "This is a maritime claim, therefore limits apply.".

• Whether the limit applies is determined by the nature of the claim, the claimants, the connection of the incident to the operation of the vessel, and any allegations of "fault that negates the limit".

• The fund establishment scenario can be used as a tool to reduce the pressure of precautionary seizure/arrest.

Strategic warning: The limit discussion should be anticipated at the beginning of the case, not "afterwards," because the evidentiary plan (allegation of intent/gross negligence, systematic neglect, expedition with known defects) is established accordingly.

---

7) Procedural and evidentiary strategy: Winning in seafarer cases often means winning the "record" battle

7.1 Mediation and litigation

According to Article 3/3 of Law No. 7036, mediation is not a prerequisite for filing lawsuits for material and moral damages arising from work-related accidents/occupational diseases.
However, labor claims (wages, severance pay, overtime, etc.) may be subject to mandatory mediation as a separate case. It is very common for two different procedural paths to arise in the same case.

7.2 Authority structure (especially for foreign-flagged vessels)

Even if the vessel flies a foreign flag, the broad jurisdiction granted in Law No. 7036 can provide a practical advantage in workplace accident cases.
In addition, the arbitration/jurisdiction clauses and the international element (Private International Law Act) in the agreement must be analyzed separately.

7.3 Golden evidence (checklist)

In maritime accidents, "classic" evidence is not enough; the following records are often decisive:

• Ship's logbook / bridge records, watch schedules

• ISM/SMS procedures, risk assessments, toolbox meeting recordings.

• Training documents, drill recordings, PPE/PPE delivery records

• Maintenance and repair records, fault notifications, classification survey reports

• CCTV footage, email/messaging records (if available)

• Initial reports taken at the time of the accident, port/terminal reports

• Medical records: initial treatment, discharge summary, disability reports

The biggest mistake in terms of proof is thinking, "It will all work with witness testimony." In maritime cases, the log-procedure-maintenance-training chain often falls behind in terms of fault.

---

8) The most common critical mistakes made in practice

1. Choosing the wrong opponent: Missing the distinction between crew manager and shipper/operator.

2. Thinking that "one lawsuit will solve everything": Confusing workplace accident compensation with labor claims in a procedural sense.

3. Gathering evidence too late: Logs, maintenance records, and CCTV footage "disappear" very quickly or become difficult to access.

4. Underestimating the international element: An objection to the arbitration/jurisdiction clause can stall the case from the outset.

5. Failing to account for the risk of limiting liability (LLMC) and not planning for "limiting liability" evidence accordingly.

---

Conclusion: The right strategy is to be able to speak two languages ​​simultaneously

A seafarer's death/injury case of labor law – "duty of care – work accident – ​​fault – compensation" maritime law – "owner/operator structure – international element – ​​insurance – limitation of liability." In Turkish practice, success depends on establishing the correct court/procedural framework (especially the work accident exceptions in Law No. 7036), the correct opposing party, and the discipline of early evidence gathering within the same case.