Can a Turkish insurance company reduce traffic accident compensation because the victim was partly at fault? Learn how contributory fault affects disability, death and bodily injury claims, including seat belt, helmet and passenger cases.

Yes. An insurance company may argue that compensation should be reduced because the injured person contributed to the occurrence or increase of the damage. However, the insurer cannot simply choose an arbitrary percentage and deduct it from compensation. Under Turkish law, the victim’s conduct must have a legally relevant connection with the occurrence or increase of the particular damage for which compensation is claimed.

This distinction is especially important in serious traffic accident cases. A victim can be completely innocent in causing the collision but still face a contributory fault argument because the victim allegedly failed to wear a seat belt, failed to use a motorcycle helmet or knowingly travelled with an intoxicated driver. Conversely, even if the victim behaved negligently in some respect, compensation should not automatically be reduced unless that conduct actually contributed to the relevant damage.

Article 52 of the Turkish Code of Obligations forms the central legal basis. Turkish legal scholarship describes the victim’s contributory fault as one of the statutory grounds permitting reduction of compensation where the victim’s conduct contributed to the damage. (TRDizin)

For policyholders and accident victims, the central question is therefore not simply “Was the victim negligent?” It is “Did that negligence cause or increase the particular loss being claimed?”

What Is Contributory Fault?

Contributory fault arises when the injured person’s own conduct contributes to the occurrence or increase of the damage.

It should be distinguished from ordinary traffic fault.

Traffic fault generally concerns responsibility for causing the collision. Contributory fault may instead concern conduct that increases the consequences of an accident after another person has already caused it.

This distinction is particularly important for passengers.

A passenger may have absolutely no responsibility for the way the vehicle was driven but may still face an argument that failing to wear a seat belt increased the injuries.

The passenger can therefore be faultless regarding the collision but contributorily at fault regarding the resulting injuries.

Can an Insurance Company Reduce Compensation?

Potentially, yes.

Where contributory fault is legally established, the compensation payable in connection with the responsible insured vehicle may be reduced accordingly.

However, the insurer must have a legally supportable basis for the reduction.

The Court of Cassation has repeatedly stated that contributory fault must be evaluated according to the characteristics of the particular case and the extent to which the victim’s conduct affected the occurrence or increase of the damage. (İctihatlar)

An insurer should therefore not treat contributory fault as an automatic discount.

Is Contributory Fault the Same as Accident Fault?

No.

This is one of the most important distinctions in Turkish traffic compensation law.

Suppose another driver runs a red light and strikes a motorcycle.

The motorcyclist may have zero responsibility for causing the collision.

However, suppose the motorcyclist was not wearing a helmet and suffered severe head injuries.

The insurer may argue that although the other driver was completely responsible for causing the crash, the motorcyclist contributed to the severity of the head injury by failing to wear appropriate protective equipment.

The two questions are legally different.

Why Does Article 52 Matter?

Article 52 of the Turkish Code of Obligations allows compensation to be reduced where the injured person’s conduct contributed to the occurrence or increase of the damage.

The provision reflects the principle that the person responsible for the accident should not necessarily bear the financial consequences of a portion of the damage that the victim materially contributed to creating or worsening.

However, causation remains essential.

The victim’s conduct must actually be relevant to the damage.

The Court of Cassation has specifically emphasized this requirement in traffic accident litigation. (İctihatlar)

The Most Important Requirement: Causal Connection

An insurance company cannot properly rely on every safety violation to reduce every category of compensation.

There must be a causal connection between the victim’s conduct and the damage.

This principle is demonstrated clearly by Court of Cassation jurisprudence involving motorcycle helmets.

In one case, a motorcyclist was not wearing a helmet but suffered disability arising from a broken leg. The Court concluded that failure to wear a helmet had no causal relationship with the leg injury. Accordingly, the helmet issue could not justify reducing compensation for that disability. (İctihatlar)

This example illustrates the central principle exceptionally well.

No helmet + head injury: contributory fault may potentially be relevant.

No helmet + unrelated leg injury: the same argument may fail because the necessary causal connection is missing.

Seat Belt Cases

Failure to wear a seat belt is one of the most common contributory fault arguments raised in traffic accident compensation claims.

A passenger may be completely innocent regarding the collision itself but suffer more severe injuries because no seat belt was used.

Court of Cassation jurisprudence has treated travelling without a seat belt as a matter that may justify a contributory fault reduction rather than ordinary driving fault. (İctihatlar)

This distinction matters during expert assessment.

The passenger should not necessarily be assigned a percentage of collision fault merely because the passenger was not wearing a seat belt.

Instead, the issue is generally evaluated when determining compensation.

Does Failure to Wear a Seat Belt Automatically Mean a 20% Reduction?

Not every case should be treated mechanically.

Older Court of Cassation decisions frequently refer to a 20% contributory fault reduction in seat-belt cases. (İctihatlar)

However, the legal analysis should still consider the facts and the causal relationship between the failure to use the seat belt and the injuries.

Recent academic analysis of Articles 51 and 52 also emphasizes that the reduction should be determined according to the circumstances rather than simply treating percentages as an inflexible mathematical rule. (TRDizin)

Accordingly, an insurer’s statement that “seat belt not used = automatic 20% reduction” should not be accepted without examining the evidence.

Motorcycle Helmet Cases

Helmet cases provide another common example.

Where a motorcycle rider suffers a serious head injury while not wearing a helmet, contributory fault may materially reduce compensation.

In a Court of Cassation decision involving skull trauma and brain hemorrhage, the Court held that a 20% contributory fault reduction should be applied because the claimant had not worn a helmet and the resulting disability involved head injuries. (İctihatlar)

Another decision similarly addressed a claimant whose injuries included a skull fracture and concluded that contributory fault should be considered because of the absence of helmet protection. (İctihatlar)

But again, causation is crucial.

What If the Motorcyclist Was Not Wearing a Helmet but Injured a Leg?

This situation has specifically reached the Court of Cassation.

Where the claimant’s disability arose from a leg injury, the Court found that failure to wear a motorcycle helmet had no causal relationship with the relevant disability.

The contributory fault reduction was therefore inappropriate. (İctihatlar)

This demonstrates why insurers should not apply generic deductions merely by identifying a traffic-safety violation.

The violation must have contributed to the claimed loss.

Riding With an Intoxicated Driver

Another significant situation arises where a passenger knowingly enters a vehicle driven by an intoxicated person.

The passenger did not drive the vehicle and therefore may not be responsible for causing the collision.

Nevertheless, knowingly accepting an obvious danger can potentially support a contributory fault argument.

Court of Cassation cases have considered knowingly travelling with an intoxicated driver together with issues such as failure to wear a seat belt. (Son Karar)

However, the insurer should establish more than the mere fact that the driver was intoxicated.

Whether the passenger knew or reasonably should have known of the driver’s condition can become important.

What If the Passenger Did Not Know the Driver Was Drunk?

Knowledge can be disputed.

Suppose the driver consumed alcohol without the passenger’s knowledge and displayed no obvious signs of intoxication before driving.

The insurer should not automatically assume that the passenger voluntarily accepted the risk.

Evidence may include witness statements, where the parties met, the driver’s behavior, the amount of alcohol consumed and the circumstances immediately before the journey.

The specific facts matter.

Travelling in an Unsafe Position

Contributory fault arguments can also arise where passengers travel in dangerous or prohibited positions.

For example, riding in a part of a vehicle not intended for passengers or failing to use available protective equipment may increase the risk of injury.

Court of Cassation jurisprudence recognizes that travelling without required protective measures can be treated as a compensation-reduction issue even where the passenger did not cause the traffic collision itself. (İctihatlar)

The causal relationship with the injury must nevertheless be established.

Can Pedestrians Have Contributory Fault?

Yes.

Pedestrian cases often involve ordinary accident fault rather than only contributory fault.

For example, a pedestrian may cross improperly while a driver is simultaneously speeding.

Both actions may contribute to the collision.

The pedestrian’s compensation can therefore potentially be affected by the allocation of responsibility.

But a separate contributory fault issue can also arise where the victim’s conduct increases the eventual damage.

The legal characterization depends on the facts.

Can Cyclists Have Contributory Fault?

Potentially.

A cyclist may contribute to the occurrence of a collision through a traffic violation, or separate conduct may increase the severity of the injuries.

These issues should not automatically be combined.

The first concerns accident causation.

The second concerns the extent of the resulting damage.

A proper compensation assessment should distinguish them.

What About E-Scooter Accidents?

The same general principles can apply.

If an e-scooter rider violates traffic rules and contributes to the collision, ordinary fault allocation may reduce recoverable damages.

If separate unsafe conduct increases the injuries, contributory fault may also become relevant.

The insurer should establish the factual and causal basis for any reduction.

Passenger Compensation and Contributory Fault

Passenger claims require particularly careful analysis because passengers are often entirely faultless in relation to the collision.

Suppose a passenger is injured when the driver loses control.

The passenger may be entitled to pursue bodily injury compensation.

However, if the passenger was not wearing a seat belt, the insurer may argue that the injuries were more serious than they would otherwise have been.

The passenger’s compensation can therefore potentially be reduced even though the passenger had no responsibility for driving the vehicle.

Court of Cassation decisions expressly distinguish this type of conduct from driving fault. (İctihatlar)

Contributory Fault in Permanent Disability Claims

The financial consequences can become substantial where the victim suffers permanent disability.

Suppose the calculated compensable disability loss is TRY 3 million.

If a legally justified contributory fault reduction of 20% applies, the reduction would equal TRY 600,000.

The final figure would therefore be materially lower.

This demonstrates why contributory fault should never be treated as a minor technical issue in catastrophic injury cases.

The underlying factual basis must be challenged where appropriate.

Serious Brain Injuries

Helmet and seat-belt arguments become particularly significant in traumatic brain injury cases.

The insurer may argue that appropriate safety equipment would have prevented or substantially reduced the head trauma.

Medical evidence becomes important.

It may be necessary to determine whether the injury would have occurred even with proper protective equipment.

The legal question is not whether safety equipment is generally useful. The question is whether its absence contributed to this victim’s particular injuries.

Spinal Cord Injuries

Seat-belt issues may also arise in spinal injury cases.

However, the relationship between seat-belt use and spinal trauma can be technically complex.

An insurer should not simply assert that every unrestrained occupant with a spinal injury must receive the same percentage reduction.

Accident reconstruction and medical evidence may be necessary to determine whether restraint use would actually have prevented or reduced the relevant injury.

Amputation Cases

The same causation requirement applies to limb-loss cases.

Suppose a motorcyclist without a helmet suffers traumatic leg amputation when another vehicle crushes the motorcycle.

The absence of a helmet obviously does not, by itself, explain the leg amputation.

As Court of Cassation jurisprudence demonstrates in the context of unrelated leg injuries, safety-equipment violations should not justify reductions where they have no causal relationship with the relevant damage. (İctihatlar)

Fatal Accident Claims

Contributory fault can also affect compensation following a fatal accident.

Where the deceased contributed to the occurrence or severity of the fatal injuries, the issue can affect compensation claimed by surviving family members.

Seat-belt use, knowingly travelling with an intoxicated driver and other conduct may therefore become relevant in loss-of-support cases.

Court of Cassation jurisprudence includes fatal passenger cases involving seat-belt and intoxicated-driver arguments. (İctihatlar)

Can Family Members Be Penalized for the Deceased Person’s Conduct?

The reduction is not imposed because surviving family members personally did something wrong.

Rather, the compensation claim derives from the consequences of the deceased person’s death.

If the deceased contributed to the occurrence or increase of the fatal harm, that circumstance can affect the underlying compensation calculation.

The precise legal basis and claim category should therefore be examined carefully.

What Is the Difference Between Fault Reduction and Contributory Fault Reduction?

This distinction is extremely important when reviewing an insurer’s calculation.

Suppose a motorcyclist is found 25% responsible for causing the accident.

The compensation calculation may first reflect the claimant’s accident-related responsibility.

Now suppose the insurer also argues that failure to wear a helmet increased a qualifying head injury.

That is a separate contributory fault question.

The same conduct should not simply be counted twice.

Court of Cassation jurisprudence has criticized calculations where the same circumstances effectively resulted in duplicate reductions. (Son Karar)

Double Reduction Can Be Challenged

Insurance companies and compensation experts must avoid duplicating the same reduction.

If a particular fact has already been incorporated into the relevant fault assessment, using exactly the same fact again to reduce compensation can potentially create an unlawful double deduction.

Court of Cassation jurisprudence demonstrates the importance of separating traffic fault from contributory fault and preventing duplicative treatment. (Son Karar)

Claimants should therefore request a transparent breakdown of every reduction applied.

What Is Gratuitous Transportation?

Another concept that sometimes appears alongside contributory fault is gratuitous transportation.

This concerns situations where a person is transported without payment or reciprocal benefit, often by a friend or acquaintance.

It is legally distinct from contributory fault.

Court of Cassation jurisprudence has treated gratuitous transportation and contributory fault as separate potential grounds for reduction. (İctihatlar)

Accordingly, insurers should not simply combine several concepts into one unexplained percentage.

Can Several Reductions Apply?

Potentially, depending on the circumstances.

However, each reduction requires its own legal basis.

Recent legal scholarship concerning Articles 51 and 52 emphasizes that where multiple grounds for reduction exist, they should be analyzed distinctly rather than treated as an unexplained global discount. (TRDizin)

This becomes particularly important where the insurer alleges accident fault, contributory fault and gratuitous transportation simultaneously.

Can an Insurance Company Simply Say “20% Contributory Fault”?

The claimant should ask why.

The insurer should identify the conduct allegedly constituting contributory fault.

It should then explain how that conduct contributed to the particular injury or loss.

For example:

“Victim did not wear a helmet” is not a complete analysis.

The relevant question is:

“Did failure to wear the helmet cause or increase the particular injury for which compensation is claimed?”

That causal analysis can determine whether the deduction is legally sustainable.

Who Determines the Percentage?

Ultimately, where the dispute reaches formal proceedings, the reduction is a legal assessment based on the circumstances of the case.

Court of Cassation decisions repeatedly refer to the judge’s evaluation of contributory fault and its effect on compensation. (İctihatlar)

An insurer’s internal percentage is therefore not automatically binding on the claimant.

The calculation can be challenged.

Is 20% Always the Maximum?

No universal rule should be assumed from older cases referring frequently to 20%.

The appropriate analysis depends on the conduct, causation and circumstances.

For example, litigation has involved combinations of seat-belt non-use, knowingly travelling with an intoxicated driver and other grounds for reduction, with disputes over whether a 20% or larger combined reduction was appropriate. (Son Karar)

The claimant should therefore examine both the legal basis and methodology rather than focusing only on a supposed standard percentage.

What Evidence Can an Insurance Company Use?

The insurer may rely on accident reports, police records, medical records, photographs, witness statements, expert reports and other available evidence.

In seat-belt cases, vehicle damage and occupant movement may sometimes become relevant.

In motorcycle cases, accident records may indicate whether a helmet was used.

However, uncertainty should not automatically be transformed into a factual assumption against the claimant.

The evidence must be evaluated properly.

Medical Evidence Can Be Critical

Contributory fault often requires medical causation analysis.

Suppose the insurer claims that failure to wear a seat belt increased the victim’s injuries.

The medical question may be whether the injuries would probably have occurred even if the seat belt had been used.

Likewise, a helmet argument should be compared with the actual anatomical injuries.

The Court of Cassation’s leg-injury decision demonstrates why this matters: helmet non-use did not justify a reduction because it was unrelated to the disability caused by the leg injury. (İctihatlar)

Accident Reconstruction Evidence

In high-value claims, accident reconstruction can also become important.

Vehicle speed, direction of impact, occupant movement, motorcycle dynamics and collision severity can help determine whether the victim’s conduct actually increased the damage.

This is particularly relevant where the insurer seeks a substantial reduction from a multi-million-lira disability claim.

A generic statement about safety equipment may be insufficient to resolve a technically complex causation dispute.

Can Foreign Accident Victims Face Contributory Fault Reductions?

Yes.

Foreign nationality does not prevent Turkish contributory fault principles from becoming relevant to a compensation claim arising from an accident in Turkey.

A foreign tourist, passenger, pedestrian, cyclist or motorcyclist may therefore face the same types of arguments.

This can be especially important where the foreign claimant is pursuing substantial permanent disability or loss-of-earnings compensation.

Foreign Tourists as Passengers

Suppose a foreign tourist is travelling as a passenger in a vehicle and suffers serious injuries.

The tourist did not cause the collision.

Nevertheless, the insurer may investigate whether the passenger was wearing a seat belt.

If the insurer proposes a reduction, the claimant should examine whether the alleged non-use actually contributed to the injuries.

Passenger status alone does not prevent contributory fault, but neither does it permit arbitrary deductions.

Rental Car Accidents

A foreign driver using a rental vehicle may also be partly responsible for an accident.

Ordinary traffic fault can reduce the amount recoverable from another responsible driver.

Separate contributory conduct may also affect particular bodily injury claims.

The rental agreement itself should not be confused with the statutory rules governing compensation against third parties.

What If the Victim Was 20% Responsible for the Accident?

Where the claimant bears actual accident fault, the compensation recoverable from other responsible parties can reflect that allocation.

Suppose total legally compensable damage is calculated at TRY 2 million and the claimant bears 20% responsibility for causing the accident.

The remaining recoverable amount may therefore be affected accordingly.

But the insurer must distinguish this from any additional contributory fault argument.

A claimant should be able to see exactly how the final figure was calculated.

Can Contributory Fault Eliminate Compensation Completely?

In exceptional circumstances, the victim’s conduct may have such a significant causal role that the responsible party’s liability is substantially affected or potentially eliminated.

Court of Cassation jurisprudence discussing Article 52 recognizes that where the victim’s own conduct is the principal cause of the damage, responsibility can be affected accordingly. (İctihatlar)

However, complete denial requires much more than identifying a minor safety violation.

The causal structure of the accident and damage must support that conclusion.

Can an Insurer Use Contributory Fault to Reduce Vehicle Damage?

The concept is not restricted conceptually to bodily injury, but the factual application differs.

For example, if a driver’s own conduct contributed to a collision that damaged the vehicle, ordinary accident fault allocation will usually be central.

Seat belts and helmets obviously do not affect vehicle repair damage.

This again demonstrates why the insurer must connect the alleged conduct with the particular category of loss.

Contributory Fault and Loss of Earnings

If the underlying bodily injury compensation is subject to a legally justified contributory fault reduction, associated economic losses may also be affected depending on the legal calculation.

This can make the financial impact substantial for high-income victims.

Foreign executives, professionals and self-employed individuals should therefore challenge unsupported reductions carefully because even a relatively small percentage can materially affect future earning-capacity compensation.

Contributory Fault and Caregiver Expenses

Serious injuries may generate substantial temporary or permanent caregiver costs.

Where the insurer establishes contributory fault relevant to the injury giving rise to those needs, the compensation calculation may potentially be affected.

Again, the connection matters.

A safety violation unrelated to the injury requiring care should not automatically justify a reduction.

Contributory Fault and Future Medical Needs

The same principle applies where the victim requires future treatment or medical assistance.

The reduction analysis must remain connected to the injuries and legally recoverable damages.

Insurers should not use an unrelated traffic violation as a universal percentage deduction from every category of loss.

Can the Insurance Company’s Reduction Be Challenged?

Yes.

A claimant can dispute both the existence of contributory fault and the percentage applied.

The challenge may focus on several issues: the alleged conduct did not occur, the insurer lacks sufficient evidence, the conduct did not cause or increase the injury, the percentage is disproportionate, or the same conduct has already been counted elsewhere in the calculation.

These arguments should be supported by evidence rather than a general objection that the settlement is too low.

Insurance Arbitration

Where the dispute concerns compensation payable by an insurer, Insurance Arbitration can potentially provide a route for resolving the disagreement after the applicable preliminary procedures are satisfied.

Contributory fault disputes frequently require close examination of accident documents, medical evidence and Court of Cassation principles.

The claimant should identify precisely which deduction is being challenged and why.

A properly structured challenge can be considerably stronger than merely requesting “more compensation.”

Court Proceedings

Depending on the parties, claim and circumstances, litigation may also be available.

The court can evaluate accident fault, contributory conduct, causation and the amount of compensation.

Expert reports may be required for medical, actuarial and accident-reconstruction issues.

The insurer’s original settlement calculation is not binding on the court merely because it was prepared internally.

Do Not Sign a Release Without Checking the Reduction

A claimant offered a settlement should understand exactly how the insurer calculated the amount.

The calculation should identify the underlying loss, accident fault percentage, contributory fault deduction, previous payments and policy limit.

Signing a broad settlement or release before reviewing these components can create significant problems.

This is particularly important in permanent disability and fatal accident claims.

Example 1: No Helmet and Brain Injury

A motorcyclist is struck entirely because of another driver’s negligence.

The motorcyclist was not wearing a helmet and suffers severe head trauma.

The insurer may potentially argue contributory fault because the absence of a helmet contributed to the severity of the head injury.

Court of Cassation jurisprudence supports such reductions in appropriate head-injury cases. (İctihatlar)

Example 2: No Helmet but Broken Leg

The same motorcyclist is not wearing a helmet but suffers only a serious leg injury.

The insurer attempts to deduct compensation because of helmet non-use.

That argument may fail because the absence of a helmet did not cause or increase the leg injury.

The Court of Cassation has specifically applied this causal analysis. (İctihatlar)

Example 3: Passenger Without Seat Belt

A passenger is injured when the driver causes an accident.

The passenger had no responsibility for the collision but was not wearing a seat belt.

The insurer may seek a contributory fault reduction if the absence of the restraint contributed to the injuries.

Court of Cassation jurisprudence treats this as a compensation-reduction issue rather than ordinary driving fault. (İctihatlar)

Example 4: Passenger With Seat Belt

Suppose the insurer nevertheless applies a standard contributory fault deduction without evidence.

The claimant should request the factual basis.

If the passenger used the seat belt and did nothing else to contribute to the injuries, an unsupported generic reduction can be challenged.

The insurer cannot simply assume contributory fault because the injuries were serious.

Example 5: Drunk Driver and Passenger

A passenger knowingly enters a vehicle with an obviously intoxicated driver.

An accident occurs.

Even though the passenger did not drive, the insurer may argue that voluntarily accepting the known danger constitutes contributory fault.

Court of Cassation jurisprudence has considered this issue in traffic compensation disputes. (Son Karar)

The passenger’s knowledge remains an important factual question.

15 Questions to Ask When an Insurer Applies Contributory Fault

1. What exact conduct is alleged against the victim?
2. What evidence proves that conduct?
3. Is the allegation about causing the accident or increasing the injury?
4. What particular injury was allegedly increased?
5. Is there a medical causal connection?
6. Has the same conduct already been included in the accident fault percentage?
7. Is the insurer applying the same fact twice?
8. How was the reduction percentage selected?
9. Does the insurer rely on an expert report?
10. Does the report analyze the victim’s actual injuries?
11. Is seat-belt or helmet use actually established?
12. Would the injury have occurred even without the alleged conduct?
13. Are several different reduction grounds being combined?
14. Has the insurer provided a transparent compensation calculation?
15. Would challenging the reduction materially increase the final compensation?

The central rule is straightforward: contributory fault can reduce insurance compensation in Turkey, but only where the victim’s conduct has a legally relevant causal connection with the occurrence or increase of the damage. A traffic-safety violation should not automatically become a blanket percentage deduction from every claim.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can an insurance company reduce my compensation because I was partly at fault?

Yes. Where the victim’s own conduct contributed to the occurrence or increase of the damage, compensation may potentially be reduced under Article 52 of the Turkish Code of Obligations. (TRDizin)

Can compensation be reduced if I was not wearing a seat belt?

Potentially, yes, particularly where failure to use the seat belt contributed to the injuries. Court of Cassation jurisprudence has recognized seat-belt non-use as a potential contributory fault issue. (İctihatlar)

Can compensation be reduced because a motorcyclist was not wearing a helmet?

Potentially, where helmet non-use contributed to the relevant injury. Court of Cassation decisions have applied contributory fault reductions in cases involving head injuries and absence of a helmet. (İctihatlar)

What if I was not wearing a helmet but only injured my leg?

Helmet non-use should not automatically reduce compensation where it had no causal relationship with the injury. The Court of Cassation has rejected such a reduction in a case where the relevant disability resulted from a leg injury. (İctihatlar)

Can a passenger have contributory fault?

Yes. A passenger may be completely faultless in causing the accident but still potentially contribute to the severity of the injuries by failing to use required safety equipment.

Can compensation be reduced if I knowingly entered a car with a drunk driver?

Potentially. Turkish case law has considered knowingly travelling with an intoxicated driver as relevant to contributory fault analysis. (Son Karar)

Is contributory fault always 20%?

No universal percentage should be assumed. Although Court of Cassation decisions have frequently applied 20% in particular seat-belt and helmet cases, the circumstances and causal effect of the victim’s conduct remain important. (İctihatlar)

Can the same conduct reduce compensation twice?

The same factual circumstance should not simply be duplicated as both traffic fault and an additional contributory fault deduction. Court of Cassation jurisprudence highlights the need to distinguish these concepts and avoid duplicative reductions. (Son Karar)

Can foreign tourists face contributory fault reductions?

Yes. A foreign claimant pursuing compensation arising from a Turkish traffic accident may face contributory fault arguments just as other accident victims can.

Can I challenge the insurer’s contributory fault percentage?

Yes. The factual basis, causal relationship and percentage of the reduction can all potentially be disputed through the appropriate insurance dispute or litigation process.

Client-Focused Legal Support for Contributory Fault and Insurance Compensation Claims in Turkey

Contributory fault can materially change the value of a serious traffic accident claim. The issue becomes particularly important in permanent disability, traumatic brain injury, spinal injury and fatal accident cases because even a relatively small percentage reduction can substantially affect the final compensation.

The insurer’s position should therefore be tested against three separate questions: What did the victim allegedly do wrong? Is that conduct actually proven? Did it cause or increase the particular injury for which compensation is claimed? Court of Cassation jurisprudence makes the importance of this causal connection particularly clear. A motorcyclist’s failure to wear a helmet may be relevant to a head injury but irrelevant to an unrelated leg injury. (İctihatlar)

Foreign accident victims should also be cautious when receiving settlement calculations containing unexplained fault deductions. Accident fault, contributory fault and other possible reduction grounds are distinct legal concepts and should be shown transparently rather than combined into a single unexplained percentage.

Fırat Fesih Kaya Law Office assists foreign individuals and international clients with contributory fault disputes, low insurance settlements, permanent disability compensation, passenger injury claims, motorcycle accident compensation, seat-belt and helmet disputes, fatal accident claims, loss of earnings, compulsory motor insurance claims, Insurance Arbitration and traffic accident litigation 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