Sicil, 2023/1 Sayi 49: Sayfa 171-195
Dr. Ögr. Üyesi Volkan GÜNES
Anadolu Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Is ve Sosyal Güvenlik Hukuku Anabilim Dali
Is kazasi niteligindeki zararlandirici olayin meydana gelmesinde isveren yaninda baskaca sorumlularin olduguna siklikla rastlanmaktadir. Böyle durumlarda isveren ve diger hükümleri uygulama alani bulabilir. Isçi, zararin tamaminin tazmini için müteselsil sorumlu isverenine basvurdugunda, zararlandirici olayin meydana gelmesinde hafif kusurlu bulunmus olan isverenin -iç iliskideki rücu hakkini kullanmadan önce- dis iliskide hafif kusurunu ileri sürdügü görülür. Isverenin bu yolla sorumlulugunu azaltmaya çalismasi anlasilir bir durumdur. Zira, bu zararlandirici olaydan tek basina sorumlu olsaydi kisisel sorumlulugu daha az olacak isverenin baskalariyla birlikte sorumlu oldugunda zararin dogrudan sebep olmadigi kismindan da sorumlu tutulmasi sorgulanabilir niteliktedir. Çalismamizda, böyle bir yaklasimin yerinde olup olmadigi, Türk hukukunun müteselsil sorumluluk ile tazminatin belirlenmesine iliskin esaslari dikkate alinarak degerlendirilmistir. Bu çerçevede özellikle 6098 sayili Türk Borçlar Kanunu ile tam teselsül-eksik teselsül ayriminin kaldirilmasi ve bunun sonuçlari ile müteselsil sorumlulukta dis iliskide kisisel indirim sebeplerine dayanmanin mümkün olup olmadigi incelenmis, Isviçre sorumluluk hukukundaki durum da aktarilarak konuyla ilgili tartismalara isik tutulmaya çalisilmistir.
İş kazası, müteselsil sorumluluk, tazminatın belirlenmesi, tazminatta indirim sebepleri, hafif kusur.
It is frequently encountered that there are other responsible persons besides the employer may apply to the employer and other responsible persons. When the employee applies to the jointly responsible employer for the compensation of the entire damage, it is observed that the employer, who is deemed to be slightly negligent in the occurrence of the occupational accident, asserts his minor negligence in the external relation before using the right of recourse in the internal relation. It is understandable that the employer tries to reduce his liability in this way since unlike being solely responsible for this occupational accident, it is questionable for the employer to be held responsible for the part where the damage is not directly caused by him when he is responsible together with others. In our study, whether such an approach is appropriate or not has been evaluated by taking into account the principles of Turkish law regarding the joint liability and the determination of compensation. In this context, it has been examined whether it is possible to abolish the dual distinction regarding solidarity with the Turkish Code of Obligations numbered 6098, and whether it is possible to claim personal grounds for reducing compensation in the external relation in joint liability. The situation in Swiss law has also been elaborated to shed light on the discussions on the subjec
Occupational accident, joint liability, determining compensation, grounds for reducing compensation, minor negligence.