Publication: Sözleşmesel sorumlulukta ağır kusur ve ağır kusurun uygulama alanları
Abstract
Sorumluluk hukukunun temel kavramlarından biri olan kusurun yasal bir tanımı bulunmamaktadır. Değişen hayat ilişkileri, ekonomik ve sosyal yapı, dönemlere göre kusurun farklı şekillerde anlaşılmasına sebep olmuştur. Sübjektif kusur anlayışı, kusuru irade üzerinden değerler felsefesiyle bağlantılı olarak ahlaki bir içeriğe sahip olduğunu savunurken, objektif kusur anlayışı kusuru, iradeyle bağlantısını kopararak davranışın hukuk düzenince uygun bulunmaması olarak sunar. Ancak iradeden dolayısıyla ayırt etme gücünden vazgeçilmesi genel olarak reddedildiği için kusurun sübjektif bir yönünün olduğu ve bunun da ayırt etme gücüne karşılık geldiği çoğunlukla kabul edilir. Kusurun ağırlığı ise sübjektif yön üzerinden değil objektif yön olarak kusurun formları olan kast ve ihmal üzerinden belirlenir. Sorumluluğun doğması için kusurun ağırlık derecesinin kural olarak bir rolü olmasa da diğer deyişle sorumluluğun doğması için hafif kusur dahi yeterli olsa da Türk Borçlar Kanunu bazı hallerde ağır kusura sonuçlar bağlamıştır. Tazminat miktarının belirlenmesi, sorumsuzluk anlaşmasının geçerliliği, bağışlayanın sadece ağır kusurundan sorumlu olması bu kapsamda zikredilebilir.
There is no legal definition of fault, which is one of the basic concepts of liability law. Changing life relations, economic and social structure have caused fault to be understood in different ways according to the periods. While the subjective understanding of fault argues that fault has a moral content in connection with the philosophy of values through the will, the objective understanding of fault presents fault as the inappropriateness of the behavior by the legal order by severing its connection with the will. However, since the abandonment of the will and thus the power of discernment is generally rejected, it is generally accepted that fault has a subjective aspect and that this corresponds to the power of discernment. The severity of the fault is determined not on the subjective aspect but on the objective aspect, which are willful intention and negligence, which are the forms of fault. Although the degree of severity of the fault does not play a role for liability to arise as a rule, in other words, even slight fault is sufficient to create liability, the Turkish Code of Obligations has attached consequences to gross fault in some cases. Determination of the amount of compensation, validity of the non-liability agreement, and the donor being liable only for gross negligence can be mentioned in this context.
There is no legal definition of fault, which is one of the basic concepts of liability law. Changing life relations, economic and social structure have caused fault to be understood in different ways according to the periods. While the subjective understanding of fault argues that fault has a moral content in connection with the philosophy of values through the will, the objective understanding of fault presents fault as the inappropriateness of the behavior by the legal order by severing its connection with the will. However, since the abandonment of the will and thus the power of discernment is generally rejected, it is generally accepted that fault has a subjective aspect and that this corresponds to the power of discernment. The severity of the fault is determined not on the subjective aspect but on the objective aspect, which are willful intention and negligence, which are the forms of fault. Although the degree of severity of the fault does not play a role for liability to arise as a rule, in other words, even slight fault is sufficient to create liability, the Turkish Code of Obligations has attached consequences to gross fault in some cases. Determination of the amount of compensation, validity of the non-liability agreement, and the donor being liable only for gross negligence can be mentioned in this context.