Background
On June 11, 2021, a young girl born in 2016 was struck and killed on an uncontrolled pedestrian crossing in Antalya. She was crossing the road with her aunt when the defendant driver, travelling in the left lane, entered the crossing at speed without slowing down. Two vehicles in the right lane had already stopped and signalled for pedestrians to cross. The child stepped into the roadway, released her aunt’s hand near the first stopped vehicle, and began running toward the opposite side; the defendant, whose view was partly obstructed by the stopped vehicles, never reduced his speed and struck her in the left lane. The child died from her injuries. A pedestrian-crossing warning sign was posted nine metres before the crossing; there were no traffic lights.
The child’s father and her minor sibling filed suit against the driver, the vehicle’s registered owner, and the compulsory motor-liability insurer. The father sought 273,611.57 TL in loss-of-support (dependency) damages—capped at 115,068 TL against the insurer under the policy limit—and 350,000 TL in moral damages. The minor sibling sought 350,000 TL in moral damages. The Antalya 8th Criminal Court of First Instance previously convicted the defendant driver of causing death through conscious negligence under Turkish Penal Code Articles 85/1 and 22/3, sentencing him to three years, ten months, and twenty days’ imprisonment; that conviction became final on September 15, 2022 after appellate review.
The first-instance commercial court (Antalya 1st Commercial Court) initially ruled in favour of the plaintiffs, but its judgment was quashed on a procedural ground: because the claim value exceeded 500,000 TL, the case was required by statute to be heard by a three-judge panel rather than a single judge. On remand, the reconstituted panel again awarded the father 253,611.57 TL in material damages (insurer capped at 95,068 TL after deducting a 20,000 TL interim payment) and moral damages of 300,000 TL to the father and 200,000 TL to the minor sibling. The driver and owner appealed that second judgment to the present chamber.
The Court’s Holding
The Regional Court of Appeal confirmed that the defendant driver bore full and exclusive fault for the accident. Applying Highway Traffic Code Article 74/1, the court reasoned that a driver approaching an uncontrolled pedestrian crossing must slow down and yield the right of way. The defendant ignored the warning sign, did not reduce speed, and should have anticipated that pedestrians would cross from behind the stationary vehicles in the right lane. Because the child used the crossing in the normal manner, no contributory fault could be attributed to her or to the supervising adults.
On the minor sibling’s moral-damages claim, the court identified a procedural defect. Court records showed that the child’s divorced parents held joint custody (ortak velayet) pursuant to a family-court order that became final on June 16, 2020. The father had brought the lawsuit alone without the mother’s written consent. Although sole custody was subsequently transferred to the mother by a judgment that became final on January 29, 2025, there was no evidence during the proceedings that the mother had ever consented to or ratified the father’s unilateral conduct of the minor’s case. Because neither joint-custodian acting alone has full litigation authority for a minor, and because the father’s claim on his own behalf was fully developed and ready for judgment, the court severed the minor sibling’s claim into a separate docket for further proceedings to cure the representation defect rather than dismiss it outright.
As to the father’s claims, the chamber rejected all of the appellants’ substantive objections. The 300,000 TL moral-damages award was held proportionate given the date of the accident, the parties’ social and economic circumstances, the defendant’s total fault, and the grief suffered by the father following the death of his young daughter. The insurer’s default date of August 20, 2021—eight business days after receipt of the written claim on August 9, 2021, as required by Highway Traffic Code Article 99/1 and the Compulsory Motor-Liability Insurance General Conditions—was affirmed. The court also clarified that the insurer’s exposure to court costs and attorney fees is limited to its actual indemnity obligation of 95,068 TL, not the full damages figure entered against the driver and owner.
Key Takeaways
- A driver who enters an uncontrolled pedestrian crossing at speed without yielding bears full fault for resulting fatalities, even where stopped vehicles partially obstruct visibility; the duty to anticipate crossing pedestrians is not diminished by obstructions.
- In Turkey, divorced parents who share joint custody must both authorise or participate in litigation on behalf of a minor child; a sole-custody parent acting alone without the other’s consent does not satisfy the statutory representation requirements under HMK Articles 51–52.
- A compulsory motor-liability insurer falls into default eight business days after receiving the claimant’s written notice under Highway Traffic Code Article 99/1; weekends do not count as business days in that calculation.
- An insurer’s liability for procedural costs (court fees, attorney fees) is proportional to its actual indemnity obligation under the policy, not to the total damages awarded against the tortfeasors jointly and severally.
- Where a case value exceeds 500,000 TL, Turkish law requires the commercial court to sit as a three-judge panel; a judgment rendered by a single judge is a structural defect warranting remand without merits review.
Why It Matters
This decision illustrates a significant practical trap for Turkish family-law practitioners handling tort claims on behalf of children of divorced parents: joint custody is not a merely nominal status. Even where one parent is the primary caregiver and the other has no objection in practice, the absence of formal consent or co-participation in litigation can leave a minor’s claim in procedural limbo, requiring severance and fresh proceedings to cure the defect. Attorneys should audit custody arrangements at the outset of any claim involving a minor plaintiff and obtain explicit written authorisation from both joint custodians.
The ruling also reinforces that Turkish courts are willing to sever, rather than simply dismiss, a defectively represented minor’s claim when the co-plaintiff parent’s own action is ripe for judgment. This pragmatic approach avoids punishing a bereaved family for a correctable procedural error while preserving judicial economy—a balance that may guide future practice in multi-plaintiff traffic-death cases where custody disputes complicate standing.