Collision Law in Turkey (Çatışma / Çatma Hukuku): Fault, Apportionment, and Evidence Strategy

Collisions—whether on the road or at sea—rarely turn on a single dramatic moment. In practice, liability is decided by a chain of micro-facts: who had priority, who violated a safety rule, whose maneuver was foreseeable, whether the impact point matches the story, and whether the evidence was preserved before it disappeared. This is why fault (kusur), “apportionment” (paylaştırma / kusur oranı), and “evidence strategy” (delil stratejisi) must be handled together as one integrated litigation plan.

Below is a client-friendly, litigation-oriented overview of how Turkish law approaches collisions, how fault is typically allocated, and how to build (or break) a case with disciplined evidence work.

---

1) Two collision worlds: traffic accidents vs maritime “çatma”

In everyday Turkish usage, çatışma is a broad “collision/conflict” term, while çatma is commonly used for maritime collisions (vessel-to-vessel). Turkish law treats these two settings with different statutory frameworks:

• Traffic collisions (road accidents) are primarily shaped by the Highway Traffic Law No. 2918, together with general tort rules in the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098. A key feature is a strict-liability style regime for damages caused by motor vehicles (with detailed rules on the operator and the vehicle owner/undertaking).

• Maritime collisions (“çatma”) are addressed in the Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102, specifically the collision section identified in practice as Articles 1286–1297, aligned with international collision concepts.

Even if your practice is mostly traffic-focused, knowing the maritime structure is helpful because it illustrates a clean principle that also appears on the road: when multiple parties contribute, liability follows the degree of fault—but only if you can prove the causal contribution and quantify it.

---

2) Fault (kusur) is not one thing: civil vs criminal vs technical causation

A collision file often runs on three parallel tracks:

1. Criminal track (if there is injury/death or certain risk offenses): focuses on whether a driver/captain committed a criminally relevant breach of duty.

2. Civil compensation track: focuses on who must pay, how much, and whether compensation should be reduced due to the victim’s contribution.

3. Technical track: focuses on physics, mechanics, timing, speed, angles, visibility, reaction time—facts that courts usually access through expert evidence.

These tracks overlap, but they are not identical. For example:

• A party can be civilly responsible even if criminal fault is not established, especially in road accidents where operator liability is central.

• A court can reduce compensation if the injured party contributed to the damage (contributory negligence), even when the other party is also clearly at fault. Turkish law expressly gives judges discretion to consider circumstances and fault severity, and to reduce compensation when the injured party contributed to the occurrence or escalation of the damage.

Practical takeaway: You do not “win” a collision case by saying “the other side is guilty.” You win by proving (i) the breach, (ii) causation, (iii) the fault share, and (iv) the damage calculation, with evidence that survives scrutiny.

---

3) Apportionment (paylaştırma): how courts decide percentages

A) Road traffic: why percentages matter even under strict liability

Under Highway Traffic Law practice, the operator/owner side often faces liability for third-party damages, while fault ratios still matter for:

• Reducing or rejecting claims due to the claimant’s contributory negligence (TBK/TCO approach),

• Recourse among responsible parties (driver ↔ operator ↔ insurer ↔ other driver),

• Insurance limits and allocation, including vehicle value-loss and property damage disputes where fault ratio shapes who pays what.

In plain terms: strict liability may get you into liability, but fault allocation decides how far that liability goes and how it is split.

B) Maritime collision: proportional liability is the headline rule

In maritime collision analysis, a commonly stated rule is that where multiple vessels are at fault, each is liable in proportion to its degree of fault.
This proportionality logic (prove breach + prove causal contribution + quantify share) is a useful mental model for traffic cases too—especially multi-vehicle collisions, chain crashes, and mixed-fault scenarios.

C) The real battlefield: contradictory reports and “unsupported” percentages

A recurring appellate theme in Turkish practice is this: courts should not decide fault percentages on contradictory or unreasoned technical material. When accident reports, expert opinions, or forensic assessments conflict, the contradiction must be resolved before judgment.

That principle drives one of the most important litigation skills in collision files:

Your goal is not just to get an expert report. Your goal is to get a report that is reasoned, consistent with physical evidence, and defensible under cross-checking.

---

4) Burden of proof and procedural leverage: build the case around HMK mechanics

A) Burden of proof (ispat yükü) shapes your evidence plan

A foundational civil procedure rule is that the burden of proof rests with the party who derives legal benefit from the alleged fact—commonly referenced through Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, Article 190 discussions.

In collision practice, this means:

• If you allege the other side ran a red light, you must secure the evidence that can credibly establish it (camera footage, signal timing data, witness statements, accident reconstruction).

• If you allege the injured party failed to mitigate damage (seatbelt, helmet, delayed treatment), you must prove both the omission and its causal effect on damage escalation (medical expert linkage).

B) Expert reports: how to challenge, clarify, or force a new one

Collision files live and die by experts. Turkish procedure allows parties to:

• request completion of missing issues,

• ask for clarification of unclear points,

• and seek appointment of a new expert within the prescribed time after notification of the expert report (a core logic reflected in HMK expert-report objection provisions).

Also important: the judge evaluates expert opinion together with all evidence rather than treating it as automatically binding.

Strategic takeaway: if a report is vague (“possible,” “likely,” “cannot be determined”), you should treat it as an invitation to (i) tighten the factual record, and (ii) force a structured reconstruction with clear assumptions.

---

5) Evidence strategy: the collision checklist that wins cases

The best collision cases are built like an investigation file, not like a complaint letter. Below is a high-impact evidence framework that works for both traffic and maritime contexts.

Step 1 — Secure “scene truth” before narratives harden

Traffic collisions (road):

• Accident report / police report, sketches, and measurements

• High-resolution photos/video from multiple angles: impact point, debris field, skid marks, lane markings, traffic lights/signs, weather/visibility

• Nearby CCTV (municipal cameras, shop cameras, building security, petrol stations)

• Dashcam and mobile videos

• Vehicle black-box/telematics where available (fleet vehicles, taxis, logistics)

Maritime collisions (çatma):

• AIS tracks, radar plots, VDR (voyage data recorder) data

• Bridge logbooks, engine logs, maneuver orders

• COLREG-related material: lookout, signals, speed in restricted visibility

• Port authority reports, pilotage records if relevant

• Damage surveys with time-stamped photos and measurements

Why this matters: once vehicles are moved, repairs begin, or the vessel proceeds to port, physical truth evaporates.

Step 2 — Lock witness evidence early (and intelligently)

Witness statements are often attacked as “subjective.” Your job is to convert them into structured factual data:

• exact position (where were you standing/driving?),

• line of sight (what could you see?),

• timing (sequence of light changes / horn / braking),

• distances (approximate but consistent),

• and “negative facts” (what the witness did not observe).

A weak witness statement says: “He was fast.”
A strong witness statement says: “I saw the vehicle enter the junction while the pedestrian light was green for about 3–4 seconds; I heard no braking before impact.”

Step 3 — Medical and damage documentation: treat it as causation evidence

For injury claims, medical records are not only about “how bad” the injury is; they prove:

• causation (injury consistent with impact mechanics),

• timeline (immediate admission vs delayed treatment),

• and mitigation behavior.

For property damage:

• preserve pre-repair inspection,

• obtain repair invoices and expert assessments,

• and document residual value loss arguments where relevant. (Vehicle value-loss claims are commonly discussed within the traffic accident compensation ecosystem.)

Step 4 — Use “expert questions” as a weapon, not a formality

A good expert mandate is narrow, factual, and testable. Examples for traffic cases:

• Determine the probable point of impact using physical traces and vehicle damage patterns.

• Assess whether each driver complied with right-of-way rules given lane markings and traffic signals.

• Reconstruct speed range based on deformation, skid, reaction time, and road condition assumptions (explicitly stated).

For maritime:

• Assess whether each vessel complied with COLREG duties under the visibility/traffic density conditions.

• Analyze relative bearing changes and whether proper avoiding action was taken in time.

• Link specific breaches to collision inevitability (causal pathway).

Türkiye’s institutional materials on traffic-accident expert practice emphasize focusing on concrete video/scene-based analysis and properly defining the expert’s technical task.

Step 5 — Attack weak fault apportionment the right way

When you face a bad fault report, do not merely say “we object.” Instead:

• identify internal contradictions,

• show mismatch with physical evidence,

• and propose the exact additional examination needed.

Courts and appellate practice are sensitive to situations where reports conflict and the conflict is not resolved before judgment.

---

6) Negotiation and procedural routes: mediation/arbitration realities (especially with insurers)

Many collision disputes become “insurance disputes” quickly. In Turkey, mandatory mediation as a precondition exists for certain commercial monetary claims since 1 January 2019, widely discussed in commercial dispute guidance.
Because insurance disputes are often treated within commercial case logic, practice frequently pushes parties toward mediation and/or insurance arbitration routes—yet application can vary by claim type and defendant structure, and there are differing views in practice about which traffic-accident compensation claims fall under mandatory mediation when sued against insurers.

Strategy point: treat “procedure” as part of evidence strategy. If you must mediate first (or expect an objection), prepare your evidentiary package before you negotiate—because negotiations often collapse into litigation, and early admissions/inconsistencies can be fatal.

---

7) Common mistakes that destroy otherwise strong collision files

1. Waiting for the “official report” instead of collecting independent evidence (CCTV often overwrites in days).

2. Repairing the vehicle before proper inspection and documentation.

3. Loose storytelling: inconsistent timelines, changing lanes/positions between statements.

4. Ignoring contributory negligence risk: seatbelt/helmet, unsafe crossing, speeding allegations—these issues are used to reduce compensation under TCO principles.

5. Treating the expert report as destiny rather than something you can reshape through targeted objections and additional examination under procedural rules.

---

Conclusion: fault is argued, apportionment is engineered, evidence is decisive

In collision law, the winner is usually the party who (1) secures the scene truth early, (2) frames causation with disciplined medical/technical proof, (3) forces a coherent expert reconstruction, and (4) anticipates contributory negligence arguments before the other side raises them.