Did defective brakes, tires, steering, airbags or another vehicle component cause a car accident in Turkey? Learn who may be liable, how insurance and product liability claims interact, what compensation may be recovered, and how foreign victims can protect their rights.

Not every car accident is caused by driver error. A defective brake system, steering failure, tire blowout, defective airbag, faulty electronic control unit, battery malfunction or another dangerous vehicle component can cause or worsen a serious traffic accident. In these cases, determining responsibility may require considerably more than examining the conduct of the drivers.

A defective vehicle accident in Turkey can potentially create several overlapping legal relationships. Depending on the circumstances, responsibility may need to be investigated against the vehicle manufacturer, component producer, importer, distributor, seller, repair or maintenance business, vehicle operator or another responsible party. At the same time, compulsory motor liability insurance, comprehensive motor insurance and product liability insurance may become relevant under different legal grounds.

The most important mistake after such an accident is allowing the vehicle or allegedly defective component to be repaired, destroyed or discarded before the cause of the failure has been technically investigated. In an ordinary collision, photographs and an accident report may provide much of the essential evidence. In a product-defect case, the vehicle itself can be the most important piece of evidence.

Can a Defective Vehicle Part Create a Compensation Claim in Turkey?

Potentially, yes.

If a defective product causes personal injury or property damage, Turkish product liability rules may provide a basis for compensation against the responsible producer or importer, depending on the circumstances.

Turkey’s product safety legislation provides that where a product causes damage to a person or property, the manufacturer or importer must compensate the resulting damage. The legislation further requires the injured person to establish the damage and the causal connection between the non-compliance and the damage.

A vehicle defect claim therefore normally requires proof of more than the fact that an accident occurred.

The claimant needs to establish what failed, why it failed and how that failure caused or increased the resulting loss.

What Vehicle Defects Can Cause Accidents?

Potential defects can involve almost any safety-critical system. Brake failure, steering defects, tire defects, suspension failure, wheel separation, accelerator malfunction, defective electronic systems, transmission problems and electrical failures can all potentially contribute to loss of vehicle control.

Other defects may not cause the initial collision but can substantially worsen the injuries.

Defective airbags, seat belts, seats, fuel systems and battery systems are important examples.

This distinction creates two broad categories of claims: crash-causing defects and injury-enhancing defects.

Both can potentially generate substantial liability.

Brake Failure Accidents

Brake failure is among the most serious alleged vehicle defects.

A driver may press the brake pedal and discover that the vehicle does not slow sufficiently or at all. The resulting collision may initially appear to be an ordinary rear-end accident.

The driver may therefore be blamed before anyone investigates the braking system.

A proper investigation should examine brake components, hydraulic systems, electronic controls, maintenance history, warning lights and previous repair work.

The question is not merely whether the brakes failed. It is also why they failed.

Steering System Failure

Unexpected steering failure can cause a vehicle to leave its lane, cross into opposing traffic or strike roadside objects.

Potential causes may include manufacturing defects, defective components, maintenance failures or prior collision damage.

Electronic steering systems can create additional technical complexity.

Diagnostic data and stored fault codes should therefore be preserved where available.

Tire Blowout Accidents

A tire blowout does not automatically establish product liability.

The tire may have been defective, but failure can also result from incorrect pressure, excessive wear, impact damage, overloading, improper installation or continued use beyond safe conditions.

The tire should therefore be preserved for technical examination.

Its manufacturer, model, production information, condition and maintenance history may all become relevant.

Wheel Separation

A wheel separating from a moving vehicle can cause a catastrophic accident.

Responsibility may depend on why separation occurred.

Possible explanations include a defective wheel component, manufacturing problem, incorrect installation, improperly tightened components or negligent maintenance.

Where recent tire or suspension work was performed, the repair business should also be investigated.

Accelerator Defects

An unintended acceleration allegation requires careful technical examination.

The claimant should avoid assuming that sudden acceleration automatically proves a manufacturing defect.

Vehicle electronic data, pedal systems, software, diagnostic records and mechanical components may all require examination.

Where possible, the vehicle should remain in its post-accident condition until an appropriate technical assessment is performed.

Defective Airbags

An airbag defect may not cause the collision itself but can substantially worsen the victim’s injuries.

Potential problems can include failure to deploy when deployment should have occurred, inappropriate deployment or a dangerous defect in the airbag system.

The legal question becomes whether the victim would have suffered less serious injuries if the safety system had functioned properly.

This is a technically demanding causation issue.

The collision severity, impact direction, occupant position, seat-belt use and airbag system must all be considered.

Seat Belt Defects

Seat belts are another example of a safety system whose failure may increase injuries rather than cause the original crash.

A defective buckle, retractor or anchorage system can potentially contribute to severe occupant injuries.

The component should not be destroyed after the accident.

Photographs should be taken before anyone alters the interior of the vehicle.

Electric Vehicle Battery Defects

Electric vehicles introduce additional product liability issues.

Battery defects may potentially contribute to fire, thermal events or other serious hazards.

Where an electric vehicle catches fire after a collision, determining whether the fire resulted normally from catastrophic crash damage or from an independent product defect can require specialized engineering analysis.

Battery condition, charging history, vehicle diagnostic information and post-collision evidence can all become important.

Vehicle Fires

A vehicle fire may result from a fuel-system defect, electrical failure, battery problem, defective component or collision damage.

The origin of the fire must therefore be determined before responsibility is assigned.

Fire investigations can become especially difficult because the event itself may destroy the evidence needed to identify its cause.

Early expert examination is consequently critical.

Software and Electronic System Defects

Modern vehicles increasingly depend on software and electronic control systems.

Braking, steering, acceleration, driver-assistance systems and battery management may all involve electronic components.

A mechanical inspection alone may therefore be insufficient.

Electronic diagnostic records, event data and software information can become central evidence in modern vehicle-defect litigation.

Advanced Driver Assistance System Failures

Vehicles equipped with emergency braking, lane assistance, adaptive cruise control or collision-warning technologies can create difficult liability questions.

The existence of such a system does not mean the driver is automatically relieved from responsibility.

Likewise, the fact that the system did not prevent an accident does not automatically prove that it was defective.

The claimant must establish what the system was designed to do, whether it operated as intended and whether any malfunction causally contributed to the collision.

Who Can Be Liable for a Defective Vehicle?

Several parties may potentially need investigation.

The manufacturer may be relevant where the vehicle itself was defective. A component producer may be relevant where the failure originated in a specific part. The importer can also have statutory product-related responsibilities.

Under Turkey’s Product Safety and Technical Regulations Law, manufacturers and importers may be responsible for damage caused by non-compliant products where the legal requirements are satisfied.

A seller, distributor, authorized service business or independent repair shop may present different liability questions depending on its own conduct.

The correct defendant should therefore be identified through evidence rather than assumption.

Manufacturer Liability

A vehicle manufacturer may potentially face liability where a defective vehicle causes legally compensable damage and the necessary elements of the claim are established.

The claimant generally needs to prove the damage and causal connection between the defect or non-compliance and the loss.

This is why technical expert evidence is so important.

A serious accident alone does not prove that the vehicle was defective.

Component Manufacturer Liability

Sometimes the vehicle manufacturer did not produce the defective component.

A brake, tire, airbag or other system may have been supplied by another manufacturer.

This can create a more complicated supply-chain investigation.

The claimant may need to determine which company manufactured the component, who placed it on the market and whether responsibility exists at several levels.

Importer Liability

Importers are particularly important for foreign-manufactured vehicles and components sold in Turkey.

Turkish product safety legislation expressly addresses manufacturer and importer liability for damage caused by products under the conditions established by law.

Accordingly, a claimant should not automatically conclude that litigation must be pursued against a foreign manufacturer outside Turkey merely because the vehicle brand is foreign.

The Turkish distribution and import structure should be investigated.

Dealer Liability

A dealership is not automatically responsible for every manufacturing defect merely because it sold the vehicle.

However, its own conduct can become relevant.

For example, questions may arise where the dealer knew of a serious safety issue, failed to perform required pre-delivery procedures or made representations concerning a vehicle’s condition.

The dealer’s role should therefore be analyzed separately from manufacturer liability.

Repair Shop Liability

Some accidents attributed initially to defective parts are actually maintenance cases.

Suppose a vehicle undergoes brake repairs and the brakes fail shortly afterward because work was performed incorrectly.

The primary issue may then be negligent repair rather than defective manufacture.

Work orders, invoices, replaced parts and service records should be preserved.

The timing between repair work and the accident can become important evidence.

Authorized Service Center Liability

An authorized service center may also face potential responsibility for its own negligent inspection or repair.

Suppose a driver repeatedly reports a steering problem but the service center returns the vehicle without resolving a safety-critical defect.

If that problem later contributes to an accident, the previous complaints and service records can become extremely important.

Written service records are generally much stronger evidence than a later statement that the driver “had complained several times.”

What If the Vehicle Was Subject to a Recall?

A safety recall can be highly relevant, but its legal significance depends on the facts.

Turkey’s product safety framework allows authorities to require measures including corrective action, withdrawal and recall where products present relevant risks or non-compliance.

If the component that caused an accident was already subject to a safety recall, the claimant should determine when the recall was announced, whether the particular vehicle was included, whether notice was provided and whether corrective work had been completed.

However, the existence of a recall does not automatically establish causation in every accident.

The claimant must still connect the relevant defect to the particular loss.

What If the Owner Ignored a Recall?

This can complicate the claim.

If the owner received clear notice of a serious safety recall and continued operating the vehicle without obtaining available corrective work, the defendant may argue that the owner’s conduct contributed to the loss.

The effect depends on the circumstances.

The timing and adequacy of recall notice, seriousness of the risk and availability of repairs should all be examined.

What If No Recall Exists?

The absence of a recall does not automatically prove that the vehicle was safe.

A defect may emerge before formal recall action occurs, may affect only a limited number of vehicles or may never result in a broad recall.

The claim should therefore be based on technical evidence concerning the particular vehicle rather than relying exclusively on recall databases.

Does Compulsory Motor Insurance Cover a Defective Vehicle Accident?

Potentially, but this requires an important distinction.

Compulsory motor liability insurance concerns the insured vehicle operator’s liability toward third parties within the statutory framework and policy limits.

If a defective vehicle causes an accident and the vehicle operator is legally liable toward another injured road user, compulsory motor insurance may become relevant to the third party’s claim.

That does not mean compulsory motor insurance replaces the product liability case against the manufacturer or another responsible business.

Several legal relationships can coexist.

Example: Brake Failure Causes a Rear-End Collision

Suppose Driver A’s brakes fail because of an alleged manufacturing defect, causing Driver A to strike Vehicle B.

The occupants of Vehicle B may potentially have claims arising from the operation of Driver A’s vehicle, making compulsory motor liability insurance relevant.

Separately, Driver A or the insurer may need to investigate whether the manufacturer, component producer or repair business bears responsibility for the brake failure.

The victim should therefore not necessarily wait for the manufacturer-liability dispute to be resolved before considering available motor insurance remedies.

Can the Driver Still Be Liable?

Potentially.

A mechanical failure does not automatically eliminate driver responsibility.

Suppose warning lights had been appearing for several weeks, braking performance had deteriorated significantly and the driver continued operating the vehicle without inspection.

The manufacturer’s potential responsibility and the driver’s own negligence could potentially coexist.

Fault should therefore be determined according to the evidence.

Can Several Parties Be Liable?

Yes.

A serious defect case may involve overlapping responsibility.

The manufacturer may have produced a defective component, a service center may have failed to detect the problem and the driver may have ignored obvious warning signs.

The fact that one party is responsible does not necessarily mean every other potential defendant is automatically released.

The causal contribution of each party should be investigated.

Comprehensive Motor Insurance

Comprehensive motor insurance may provide another source of recovery for damage to the insured vehicle, depending on the policy wording, exclusions and accident circumstances.

This contractual claim should be distinguished from product liability.

An insurer may compensate the insured vehicle under the policy while responsibility against the manufacturer or another party remains a separate issue.

The policy should therefore be reviewed carefully before deciding that a product-liability investigation makes an insurance claim unnecessary.

Product Liability Insurance

Manufacturers and other businesses may maintain product liability insurance.

Such policies can potentially respond where insured product-related liability is established, subject to policy terms and exclusions.

However, the injured person should focus first on identifying the legally responsible party.

Whether that defendant has liability insurance and the scope of such insurance are separate questions.

What Compensation Can an Injured Victim Claim?

A defective vehicle accident can cause the same categories of catastrophic loss as any other serious traffic accident.

Depending on the applicable legal basis, the victim may potentially seek compensation for permanent disability, loss of earnings, reduced earning capacity and other legally compensable material losses.

Where the accident causes death, qualifying family members may potentially have death-related claims.

Vehicle and other property damage must be analyzed separately.

Permanent Disability Compensation

A defective brake, steering or tire system can cause a high-speed collision resulting in permanent injuries.

The victim may suffer spinal damage, traumatic brain injury, amputation, nerve damage or severe orthopedic impairment.

The compensation assessment can involve the victim’s age, occupation, income, permanent medical impairment and long-term ability to work.

The seriousness of the product defect itself does not determine compensation. The victim’s actual legally compensable loss does.

Future Medical Consequences

Some injuries require long-term treatment, rehabilitation or future surgical procedures.

The victim should preserve specialist reports explaining anticipated treatment and long-term limitations.

A serious claim should not be finalized before the medical prognosis is sufficiently understood.

This is especially important where neurological or spinal injuries are involved.

Loss of Earnings

Employment contracts, salary statements, banking records and employer confirmations should be preserved.

Self-employed victims should retain tax documents, invoices and historical financial evidence.

Where the claimant earns income outside Turkey, foreign documentation can become important.

The objective is to establish the real economic consequences of the accident rather than rely on unsupported estimates.

Loss of Future Earning Capacity

Permanent disability can reduce a person’s ability to continue working in the previous profession.

The economic consequences vary significantly by occupation.

Permanent hand impairment can have severe consequences for a surgeon or musician, while spinal impairment can prevent a person from continuing physically demanding work.

The calculation should therefore be individualized.

Fatal Accidents Caused by Defective Vehicle Parts

A defective component can cause a fatal collision.

In such cases, surviving family members may potentially have claims relating to loss of financial support and other legally recognized death-related damages.

The investigation should determine whether the accident resulted from product defect, negligent maintenance, driver conduct or a combination of factors.

Compulsory motor insurance and product liability can potentially become relevant through different legal relationships.

Foreign Tourists Injured in a Defective Vehicle Accident

Foreign nationality does not itself prevent a qualifying compensation claim in Turkey.

Foreign tourists injured while travelling in a defective rental car, taxi, bus or another vehicle should preserve accident reports and medical records before returning home.

Where possible, information identifying the vehicle should also be obtained.

If the defect itself is suspected, the vehicle’s make, model, registration number and identifying information become particularly important.

Defective Rental Car Accidents

Rental vehicles create additional liability questions.

A renter may suffer an accident because of allegedly defective brakes, tires or steering.

The investigation should consider whether the defect existed when the vehicle was provided, whether the rental company knew or should have known of the problem, whether maintenance was adequate and whether a manufacturing defect was involved.

The rental agreement and vehicle-condition documentation should be preserved.

A renter should also preserve any messages sent to the rental company concerning warning lights or mechanical problems before the accident.

Company Fleet Vehicles

Companies operating large fleets have maintenance responsibilities that can become important after mechanical-failure accidents.

Maintenance schedules, inspection records and driver defect reports should be investigated.

Where a business continues operating a vehicle despite known safety concerns, its own conduct may become a central liability issue.

The manufacturer’s potential liability should nevertheless be analyzed separately.

Commercial Trucks and Buses

Mechanical failures involving heavy commercial vehicles can cause catastrophic multi-vehicle accidents.

Brake, tire and steering failures are particularly serious because of vehicle weight.

The investigation may need to include the operator, employer, maintenance contractor, component manufacturer and vehicle manufacturer.

Commercial maintenance records can become decisive evidence.

What If a Defective Part Was Installed After Purchase?

Aftermarket components require careful investigation.

If the original vehicle was safe but a defective replacement component was later installed, responsibility may shift toward the component manufacturer, supplier or installer depending on the cause of failure.

The invoice for the replacement part should be preserved.

The claimant should identify the brand, model and source of the component wherever possible.

Counterfeit Vehicle Parts

Counterfeit or unauthorized components can create particularly difficult supply-chain cases.

The claimant may need to identify who sold and installed the part and whether the vehicle owner knew what was being purchased.

Invoices, packaging and component markings should be preserved.

A defective-part case can fail simply because the allegedly defective component was discarded before its origin could be established.

Evidence Preservation Is Critical

The vehicle should not be destroyed, dismantled or repaired before the relevant evidence is secured where a serious product defect is suspected.

This is especially important in total-loss cases.

An insurer or salvage company may seek to dispose of the vehicle after valuation.

If the vehicle disappears before technical examination, proving that a defective component caused the accident can become dramatically more difficult.

Written notice requesting preservation may therefore become necessary in serious cases.

Preserve the Defective Component

If a component must be removed, it should be identified and preserved appropriately.

Its condition should be photographed before and after removal.

Information concerning who removed it, when it was removed and where it was stored should be documented.

Maintaining a reliable evidence chain can become important where defendants later argue that the component was altered after the accident.

Vehicle Electronic Data

Modern vehicles can contain significant electronic information.

Depending on the vehicle, diagnostic systems may preserve fault codes and other technical data.

This information can potentially help establish whether a mechanical or electronic failure occurred before the collision.

Electronic evidence should therefore be secured before repair procedures erase or overwrite relevant data.

Service and Maintenance Records

Complete maintenance history should be collected.

Records can establish whether the owner properly maintained the vehicle, whether previous warnings existed and whether an authorized service center had previously examined the relevant system.

A pattern of repeated complaints about the same safety problem can become particularly significant.

Photographs and Video

Photograph the vehicle from multiple angles before repair.

Photograph the suspected component where visible.

Dashcam footage should also be preserved.

If the driver stated immediately after the accident that the brakes or steering failed, official accident records and witness statements reflecting that contemporaneous explanation may become important.

Expert Examination

Technical expert evidence is often the foundation of a successful defective vehicle case.

The expert may need to answer questions such as: What component failed? Did it fail before or because of the collision? Was the failure caused by manufacture, installation, maintenance, wear or external impact? Did the failure cause the accident? Would the accident have occurred without it?

The distinction between pre-collision failure and collision-induced damage is particularly important.

A component found broken after a severe accident is not necessarily the component that caused the accident.

The Manufacturer May Blame Maintenance

This is a predictable defense.

The manufacturer may argue that the vehicle was inadequately serviced or that non-approved components were installed.

Maintenance records therefore become critical.

If the vehicle was serviced according to recommended procedures and the relevant component remained original, documentary evidence can help address this defense.

The Repair Shop May Blame the Manufacturer

The opposite can also happen.

A repair business may argue that the component itself was defective rather than improperly installed.

This is why independent technical examination is important.

A claimant should avoid accepting either side’s explanation before the physical evidence is analyzed.

What If the Insurer Says the Driver Caused the Accident?

The insurer may initially treat the collision as ordinary driver negligence.

If technical evidence later establishes that a sudden mechanical defect contributed to the event, the liability analysis may change.

However, from the perspective of an injured third party, disputes between the vehicle operator, manufacturer and other businesses should not automatically be assumed to eliminate available claims against legally responsible insured parties.

The entire liability structure should be examined.

Time Limits for Product Liability Claims

Time limits require particular attention.

Under the Product Safety and Technical Regulations Law, compensation claims under the relevant product-liability provision are subject to a limitation period of three years from the date the injured person learns of the damage and the person responsible for compensation, and in any event a ten-year period beginning from the date the damage occurred.

Other claims arising from the same accident may be governed by different limitation periods.

A claimant should therefore not assume that one universal deadline applies to every manufacturer, insurer, driver and repair business involved in the case.

20 Critical Steps After an Accident Involving a Suspected Vehicle Defect

1. Obtain emergency medical treatment where necessary.
2. Ensure the accident is officially documented.
3. State the suspected mechanical failure in the accident record where appropriate.
4. Photograph the vehicle before repair.
5. Preserve the suspected defective component.
6. Prevent premature destruction or salvage of the vehicle.
7. Preserve dashcam recordings.
8. Secure vehicle diagnostic data where available.
9. Obtain the complete maintenance history.
10. Preserve previous repair invoices.
11. Preserve earlier complaints concerning the same problem.
12. Determine whether the vehicle or component was recalled.
13. Identify the vehicle manufacturer.
14. Identify the component manufacturer where possible.
15. Identify the importer and distribution chain where relevant.
16. Investigate recent repair or maintenance work.
17. Arrange appropriate independent technical examination.
18. Identify all potentially applicable insurance policies.
19. Calculate bodily injury and property losses separately.
20. Determine every potentially responsible party before settlement or disposal of critical evidence.

The central principle is that finding a broken component after an accident does not prove that the component caused the accident. Successful defective vehicle claims depend on establishing the sequence scientifically: the defect existed before the collision, the defect caused or materially contributed to the accident or injuries, and the claimant suffered legally compensable damage as a result.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I claim compensation if defective brakes caused a car accident in Turkey?

Potentially, yes. Depending on the evidence, responsibility may involve the vehicle or component manufacturer, importer, repair business or other parties. Motor insurance may also become relevant where third parties were injured.

Is the manufacturer automatically responsible if a part breaks?

No. The claimant generally needs evidence establishing the defect or non-compliance, damage and causal connection. A component may have broken because of the collision rather than causing it.

Can both the manufacturer and driver be responsible?

Potentially, yes. A product defect and driver negligence can coexist. For example, a driver who ignores obvious mechanical warnings may potentially share responsibility even where a component was defective.

What if the defect was caused by bad repair work?

The repair or service business may potentially bear responsibility if negligent work caused the failure. Service invoices, work orders and the removed component should be preserved.

Does compulsory motor insurance cover defective-part accidents?

It may become relevant to qualifying third-party claims where operation of the insured vehicle creates legal liability. It does not eliminate separate product liability claims against manufacturers or other responsible parties.

Can comprehensive motor insurance cover the damaged vehicle?

Potentially, depending on the policy wording, coverage and exclusions. Comprehensive insurance and product liability are separate legal relationships.

What if the vehicle was subject to a recall?

A recall can be highly relevant evidence, particularly where it concerns the component alleged to have caused the accident. However, the claimant must still establish causation in the particular case.

Can a foreign tourist make a defective vehicle claim in Turkey?

Potentially, yes. Foreign nationality does not itself prevent a qualifying claim. This can be particularly relevant to rental-car, taxi, bus and other passenger accidents.

Should the damaged vehicle be repaired immediately?

Where a serious product defect is suspected, critical evidence should first be preserved. Repairing or destroying the vehicle before technical examination can make proving causation substantially more difficult.

How long do product liability claims have to be filed?

Under the relevant Turkish product safety legislation, the statutory product-liability compensation claim is subject to a three-year period from learning of the damage and responsible person and, in any event, a ten-year period from the date of damage. Other claims arising from the accident may have different deadlines.

Client-Focused Legal Support for Defective Vehicle Accident Claims in Turkey

Defective vehicle accidents sit at the intersection of traffic liability, insurance law, consumer and product liability rules, technical engineering evidence and compensation law. Determining that a brake, steering system, tire, airbag or electronic component failed is only the beginning. The investigation must establish why the failure occurred, whether it existed before the collision and which company or person bears legal responsibility.

Evidence preservation is therefore particularly important. A damaged vehicle that would ordinarily be repaired or sent for salvage may contain the only physical evidence capable of proving the product defect. Maintenance records, electronic diagnostic data, recall information, service-center complaints and independent technical examination can all become decisive.

For foreign victims, defective rental vehicles and accidents involving foreign-manufactured vehicles can create additional complications involving manufacturers, importers, rental businesses, insurers and cross-border medical or income evidence. These claims should be structured around every potentially responsible party rather than treated solely as ordinary traffic insurance disputes.

Fırat Fesih Kaya Law Office assists foreign individuals and international clients with defective vehicle accidents, brake and steering failure claims, defective tire accidents, airbag and seat-belt claims, electric vehicle battery defects, vehicle fire claims, manufacturer and importer liability, negligent vehicle repairs, rental-car defects, compulsory motor insurance disputes, product liability claims and serious traffic accident compensation proceedings in Turkey.

Phone: +90 312 434 22 22
Mobile: +90 532 769 22 22
Email: info@firatfesihkaya.av.tr
Address: Mevlana Boulevard No: 221, Yıldırım Tower, Balgat, Çankaya, Ankara, Turkey