Liability for Damage Caused by Domestic and Wild Animals in Turkish Law
Abstract
Abstract.
The Turkish Code of Obligations holds pet owners objectively liable for any damage caused by their pets regardless of fault on the grounds that they failed to carry out their supervisory duty. There is, however, no regulation on compensation for damages caused by wild or stray animals. The legal gap in this field is filled by case laws. The aim of this study is to compare pet owner liability regulated by private law as strict liability and state liability for damage caused by wild animals protected by national legislation and international conventions. The research material consists of current legislation, and judicial and administrative decisions on property damage and bodily injury caused by animals. Tort claims for damages caused by pets and wild animals differ by statute of limitations, judicial remedy, the law on which the case is based, and strict liability principles. Pet owner liability for damage caused by the pet is based on strict liability in private law while administrative court decisions hold the administration liable based sometimes on strict liability and sometimes on negligence.
Keywords: Pet owner liability; Pets; Wild animals; Strict liability; Compensation
Abstrak.
Kode Kewajiban Turki meminta pemilik hewan peliharaan bertanggung jawab secara obyektif atas kerusakan yang disebabkan oleh hewan peliharaan mereka, terlepas dari kesalahan yang dilakukan. Adapun alasan yang diajukan karena pemilik hewan gagal menjalankan tugas pengawasan. Namun, tidak ada peraturan tentang kompensasi atas kerusakan yang disebabkan oleh hewan liar atau tersesat tersebut. Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk membandingkan kewajiban pemilik hewan peliharaan yang diatur oleh hukum privat sebagai kewajiban yang ketat dan kewajiban negara atas kerusakan yang disebabkan oleh hewan liar yang dilindungi oleh undang-undang nasional dan konvensi internasional. Materi penelitian terdiri dari undang-undang saat ini, dan keputusan yudisial dan administratif tentang kerusakan properti dan cidera tubuh yang disebabkan oleh hewan. Klaim kerugian atas kerusakan yang disebabkan oleh hewan peliharaan dan hewan liar berbeda menurut undang-undang pembatasan, upaya hukum, hukum yang menjadi dasar kasus, dan prinsip tanggung jawab yang ketat. Tanggung jawab pemilik hewan peliharaan atas kerusakan yang disebabkan oleh hewan peliharaan didasarkan pada tanggung jawab yang ketat dalam hukum privat, sementara keputusan pengadilan administratif memegang tanggung jawab administrasi terkadang berdasarkan tanggung jawab yang ketat dan terkadang pada kelalaian.
Kata kunci: Kewajiban pemilik hewan peliharaan; Hewan peliharaan; Hewan liar; Tanggung jawab yang ketat; Kompensasi
Аннотация.
Обязательственный кодекс Турции возлагает на владельцев домашних животных объективную ответственность за ущерб, причиненный их домашними животными, независимо от причиненного им вреда. Выдвинутые причины заключались в том, что владелец животного не выполнил свои обязанности по надзору за ним. Однако нет никаких правил относительно компенсации ущерба, причиненного дикими или бродячими животными. Целью этого исследования было сравнить обязанности владельцев домашних животных, регулируемые частным правом как строгое обязательство, и обязанности государства за ущерб, причиненный дикими животными, охраняемыми национальными законами и международными конвенциями. Материалы исследования состоят из действующего законодательства, судебных и административных решений в отношении имущественного ущерба и телесных повреждений, причиненных животными. Иски о возмещении ущерба, причиненного домашними и дикими животными, различаются в зависимости от закона об исковой давности, установленного закона, закона, на котором основано дело, и строгих принципов ответственности. Ответственность владельца домашнего животного за ущерб, причиненный домашним животным, основана на строгой ответственности по частному праву, в то время как решения административных судов предусматривают административную ответственность, иногда основанную на строгой ответственности, а иногда на небрежности.
Ключевые слова: Обязанности владельцев домашних животных; Домашнее животное; Дикое животное; Строгая ответственность; Компенсация
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Akyılmaz, B. (2000). Administrative Procedure. Ankara, Turkey: Yetkin Publishing House.
Akyılmaz, B., Sezginer, M. & Kaya, C. (2018). Turkish law of administration. Ankara, Turkey: Savaş Publishing House.
Antalya, G. (2008). “New Developments in Liability Law”. Marmara University, Faculty of Law, Journal of Legal Studies, Volume 14, I. 4, pp. 63-83.
Antalya, G. (2017). Law of obligations, general provisions. İstanbul, Turkey: Ekim Publishing House.
Armagan T. (1997). Liability of administration and full remedy actions. Ankara, Turkey: Seçkin Publishing House.
Ashton-Cross D.I.C. (1953). “Liability in Roman Law for Damage Caused by Animals”. Cambridge Law Journal, Volume. 11, p. 393.
Atay, E.E., Odabası, H. & Gökcan, H.T. (2003). Liability of Administration and Actions for Damages, Ankara, Turkey: Seçkin Publishing House.
Ayan, M. (2016). Property Law II, Property, Seçkin Publishing, Ankara, p. 1-607.
Aybay, A. & Hatemî, H. (2009). Property Law, Vedat Publishing, İstanbul, p. 1-312.
Aybay, A. (2011). Lessons on Code of Obligations, Istanbul, 3. Issue, p.1-216.
Bardakoğlu. (1978). “Legal Responsibility of the Damage by the Animal in Comparative Law”, Erciyes University Journal of Faculty of Theology, Issue 6.
Çaglayan, R. (2009). “Social Risk Principle Within the Context of Absolutely Ability of Administration in Accordance with Risk Principle.” Gazi University Liability and Law of Damages Symposium; May 28-29; Ankara, Turkey. p. 451–496.
Dönmez, B. (2013). Crimes against Animals, Yaşar University Journal of Electronic, Volume 8, Special Issue, (A Gift for Aydın Zevkliler), Izmir, pp.903-925.
Eren, F. (2018). Law of obligations, general provisions. Ankara, Turkey: Yetkin Publishing House.
Eroğlu, H. (1985). Law of administration, general principles, administrative organization and control of administration. Ankara, Turkey: Sevinç Publication.
Ertaş, Ş. (2018). Property Law, Izmir, pp. 1-657.
Evcin Ö. (2013). "Determination of The Distribution and Habitat Types of Roedeer (Capreoluscapreolus) in Kastamonu". Kastamonu, Turkey. Kastamonu University Institute of Science Master Thesis.
Evren, Ç. C. (2011). "Difference between Neglect of Duty and Tort, and Judicial System." Journal of Turkish Bar Association, July-August, Year 95, Issue 24, pp.175-196.
Gülan A. (1999). Legal Regime That the Methods of Utilization of Public Property Depend. Istanbul, Turkey: Alfa Publication.
Gülan, A. (1998). “Concept of Public Service” Journal of Administrative Law, Year: 9, Volume 1-3, pp.147-159.
Guloğlu Y. (2010). “Legal Status of Private Forests in Turkish Public Law”. Ankara, Turkey: Gazi University Institute of Social Sciences Doctoral Dissertation.
Gunes, Y. (2009). “Crimes and Misdemeanors against Hunting Animals and Wildlife: An Analysis Based on Comparative Law”. Istanbul University Journal of Forestry Faculty, Series B, Volume 59, Issue 2, p.15-32.
Head of Wildlife Department. (2018). Head of Wildlife Department, Duties of Department. Retrieved from: http://www.milliparklar.gov.tr/dairebaskanliklari/yaban-hayat%C4%B1-dairesi ba%C5%9Fkanl%C4%B1%C4%9F%C4%B1 downloaded on March 20, 2020.
Jackson, S. B. (1978). “Liability for Animals in Roman Law: An Historical Sketch”. Cambridge Law Journal, Volume 37(1):122.
Kaleli, Ş. (1979). “Animal Owner Liability.” Journal of Supreme Court, Volume 5, Issue 3, Ankara, pp. 515-530.
Keleş, R. (2013). Environment, Environmental Problems and Environmental Policy in 100 Questions, Yakın Bookstore, Izmir, pp. 1-320.
Kılıçoğlu, K. (2010). “Regulation on the Draft Bill of the Turkish Code of Obligations on Animal Rights - Killing Animals”. Journal of Ankara Bar Association, Year 68, Number 4, pp.335-340.
Koçhisarlıoğlu, C. & Söğütlü Erişgin, O. (2013). "Legal Status of Animals". Yaşar University Journal of Electronics: A Gift for Prof. Dr. Aydın Zevkliler (Volume 8, Special Issue), Volume: 2, İzmir, p.1691-1725.
Kucuk, E. (2013). Actio Popularis in System of Actions in Roman Law. Ankara, Turkey: Ekim Publishing House.
Mol, T. (2006). “Wild life”. İstanbul, Turkey: Istanbul University Faculty of Forestry Publication.
Nicholas, B. (1958). Liability for Animals in Roman Law, Acta Juridica. http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?public=false&handle=hein.journals/actj1958&id=1 downloaded on March 20, 2020.
Oğuzman, K & Öz, T. (2012). Law of Obligations, General Provisions. İstanbul, Turkey Seckin Publication.
Ozbek, V. Ö. & Doğan K. (2007). "Legal Aspect of Obligation (Article 25/2 of the Turkish Penal Code)". Dokuz Eylül University Journal of Faculty of Law, Volume: 9, Issue 2, Izmir, pp. 195-222.
Tan, T. (2018). Law of Administration. Ankara, Turkey: Turhan Publication.
Tandoğan, H. (1981). No-Fault Non-Contractual Liability, Ankara.
Turkoglu, O.G. (2006). “Liability Arising from Damages Caused by Animals in Roman Law”. Journal of Selçuk University Faculty of Law, Volume 14 (2): 69-96.
Uçkan, M. (2013). “An Evaluation on the Evacuation of Pets from House”. Yaşar University Journal of Electronic: A Gift for Prof. Dr. Aydın Zevkliler (Volume 8, Special Issue), Volume: 3, Izmir, pp. 2845-2895.
Umur, Z. (1975). Roman Law Dictionary, İstanbul.
Yasin M. (2015). Confirmation In Administrative Trial Procedure. Istanbul, Turkey: On İki Levha Publication.
Yavuz, C. (2008). “Strict Liability Circumstances and Principles according to the Draft Bill of the Turkish Code of Obligations”. Marmara University, Faculty of Law, Journal of Legal Studies, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp. 36-42.
Yıldırım, T., Yasin M., Kaman, N. & Özdemir, E. (2009). Law of Administration. lstanbul, Turkey: On İki Levha Publication.
Yılmaz H. (2006). “A View to Animal Rights”. Journal of Turkish Bar Association, 2006; 62:212-229.
Yüce T. (2017). “The Liability of Animal Owner in Roman and Turkish Law for Damage Caused by Aminals”. Inönü Univesity Faculty of Law Magazine, Volume 8 (2): p. 393-422.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15408/jch.v8i2.16299 Abstract - 0 PDF - 0
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.