Background
The plaintiff alleged that, while working as a construction laborer on November 13, 2023, he lost his balance and fell while cutting iron. A passing vehicle then ran over his left hand and arm, causing injury. He sued the vehicle’s driver and operator and its compulsory motor-liability insurer, alleging that the insurer had made no payment despite receiving a claim.
As an unliquidated-claim action under Article 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff initially sought a total of TRY 100 for temporary and permanent incapacity, attendant expenses, and treatment and transportation costs, plus advance interest. The Samsun Commercial Court of First Instance dismissed the action on procedural grounds and ordered its transfer to a labor court because it considered the accident an occupational accident. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the defendants’ alleged liability arose from the traffic accident and the compulsory insurance policy, not an employment relationship.
The Court’s Holding
The Third Civil Chamber agreed with the plaintiff. Although the incident qualified as an occupational accident, none of the defendants had any connection to the work performed by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff had not directed his damages claim against his employer. The defendants were instead the driver and operator of the vehicle and its compulsory motor-liability insurer.
The court therefore held that the commercial court, rather than the labor court, had subject-matter jurisdiction over the action. Acting under Article 353(1)(a)(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, it unanimously accepted the appeal, vacated the jurisdictional dismissal, and returned the case to the Samsun Commercial Court of First Instance for further proceedings. The appellate decision was final.
Key Takeaways
- An accident’s classification as an occupational accident does not by itself place every resulting damages action within the labor courts’ jurisdiction.
- Jurisdiction turns on the parties and legal basis of the asserted liability; claims against an unrelated driver, vehicle operator, and compulsory motor insurer may remain in commercial court.
- Because the plaintiff did not sue his employer and the defendants had no connection to his employment, the commercial court’s transfer of the case to a labor court was erroneous.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes the regulatory classification of an event from the jurisdiction governing particular defendants. A single workplace incident may support claims arising from different legal relationships, and a traffic-injury claim does not become an employment dispute merely because the injured person was working when the accident occurred.
For practitioners, the ruling underscores the importance of identifying the defendants and source of liability when selecting a Turkish forum, particularly where compulsory motor insurance and workplace injuries overlap.