In this article, we will examine the legal responsibility of the employer on occupational health and safety, based on sample judicial decisions on work accident and occupational disease.
1. Legal nature of the employer's liability
One of the most important practices of the employer's duty to observe the worker is the obligation to take occupational health and safety measures.While determining the scope and limits of this obligation, the 21st Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation determined the most appropriate point of departure based on the sanctity of human life in our opinion.As a matter of fact, in the case of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage filed by the heirs of the worker as a result of the death of the worker as a result of the accident that occurred as a result of the failure of the brakes during the descent on the wet and slippery road on the way to duty,subject in the decision dated 7.2.2006 (21 HD., E. 2005/13299, K. 2006/810, Legal-İSGHD, 2006, P. 11, p. 1059-1062; in the same direction 7.7.2006 E. 2006/7203, K. 2006/7547, Labor and Society, 2007/3, 14, pp. 343-344) defect expert concluded that the employer was not at fault due to technical fault, but the employer would be liable pursuant to Article 85 of Law No. 2198 and Article 55 of the Code of Obligations.The 21st Civil Chamber has rightly stated that it is true that the employer is responsible,however, the defendant stated that it is not correct to accept that the employer has no liability based on fault.
With a very appropriate assessment of the Special Chamber, it is the express command of Article 77 of the Labor Law that the employer is obliged to do what is necessary to ensure the health and work safety of the workers in the workplace, to provide the conditions in this regard and to keep the tools in full, within the framework of the sanctity of human life.Based on the fact that the vehicle involved in the concrete incident was a 1982 model and was 15 years old on the date of the incident, the employer did not provide any information and documents regarding the periodical maintenance and controls, if the necessary precautions were taken at the workplace and the vehicle was maintained regularly, if the vehicles whose economic life had expired were renewed, the incident would not have occurred. held that it was not appropriate to take the basis of the judgment.In our opinion, the decision of the Chamber is correct.
2. Proper causal link
In the case subject to the decision of the 21st Civil Chamber dated 11.7.2006 (21. HD., 11.7.2006, E. 2006/8173, K. 2006/7907, Legal-İSGHD, 2007, p. 13, p. 384-385).The newspaper reporter worker was injured by a third party with a gun in front of his house at around 22:00 after leaving the workplace due to the news and headline published in the newspaper, and lost his earning power at a rate of 23.3% as a result of a work accident.While the instigators and those who injured them with a gun were found to be at fault in the expert report, it was stated that the defendant employer was not at fault in the aforementioned incident, and the court of first instance decided in this direction.
Special Chamber, however, it is seen that the evaluations of the experts regarding the material event and the faultlessness of the employer do not comply with the scope of the file.In the concrete case, the defendant employer expects a duty from the plaintiff without being limited to working hours, and even the claimant's request for the employer to notify the overtime request in writing is a 24-hour journalistic duty.The employer refuses to be there for the correspondent in all kinds of events that may occur during and outside working hours,The application and telephone conversations in which the plaintiff was threatened due to the news and comments published in the newspaper were not taken seriously by the administration,The way the news was delivered and the expressions in the news headlines were more effective than the content of the articles.The way the news was delivered and the expressions in the news headlines were more effective than the content of the articles.As such, it is obvious that the expert's assessment that there was no event that the employer could foresee was wrong. Within the framework of the sanctity of human life, the employer is obliged to do what is necessary to ensure the health and work safety of its employees, to provide the conditions in this regard and to keep the tools intact.It is an express order of Article 77 of the Labor Law.In the expert report, both in the workplace and in the areas where the newspaper reporter works, depending on the nature of the work done.and taking into account the occurrence of the damaging insurance event.It is stated that the occupational health and safety measures that should be applied while traveling from the plaintiff's home to the workplace and from the workplace to his/her home should be specified.