COMPENSATION BASED ON THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ANIMAL OWNER-SUPREME COURT DECISION

T.C.
THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT
3. Law Department

The Decision of 2015/4561 is Based on 2016/2442 Dated 23.2.2016
LAWSUIT: As a result of the court’s hearing of the compensation case between the parties, the decision to accept the case was appealed by the defendants within the time limit; after the decision was made to accept the appeal petition, the papers in the file were read and considered decisively:

DECISION : The plaintiff filed a petition for; Altunhisar District, Ulukışla Town, Ölezi and Urganlar district, 54 and 658 parcels of real estate numbered 54 and 658 of the crop grown by the sheep herds belonging to the defendants was damaged by the Bor Magistrate’s Court 2013/8 d.the determination was made with the decision of iş numbered and the damage to the immovable property numbered 54 parcels was 1.048 TL, claiming that the loss of real estate numbered 658 parcels was determined to be TL 1,761, he requested and sued for a total of TL 3,492 compensation as the cost of product damage and the cost of the detection file to be decided jointly and severally together with the legal interest from the defendants.
In their response petition, the defendants stated that they did not accept the plaintiff’s claim that they had damaged their fields and requested that the case be dismissed.
Upon acceptance of the case, the court decided that the TL 2.809 product damage should be taken from the defendants and given to the plaintiff, and the fees and expenses made in the 2013/8 different business file of the Magistrate’s Court should be taken from the defendants and given to the plaintiff, and the verdict was appealed by the defendants.
According to the articles in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based, the reasons for the legal requirement, and in particular, there is no inaccuracy in the discretion of the evidence, other appeals are not in place.
The case concerns a claim for compensation based on the responsibility of the owner of the animal.
The plaintiff’s witnesses who were heard within the scope of the file stated that they personally told them that they had examined both real estate separately in their statements in court and in the minutes of the matter they had signed at the scene of the incident, and that both defendants had accepted the damage caused in relation to different real estate.
However, the court determined separately which real estate aspect of each defendant should be held responsible for the damage caused, and a verdict should be established according to the result, while it was not considered correct for both defendants to be held jointly and severally responsible for all the damage, this aspect required a breakdown.
CONCLUSION: Without regard to the principles described above, the provision in writing is invalid, the appeals are in place for these reasons, and the acceptance of the provision is HUMK.nun 428.according to the article, it was decided unanimously on 23.02.2016 that it would be OVERTURNED and returned to the appellant if the appeal fee received in advance was requested.