This is the English version of a Turkish article. The original, with further detail and linked petition templates, is at Kusursuz Sorumluluk: Kusurunuz Olmadan da Tazminat Ödenir mi?.
The general rule is that the person whose fault caused the loss pays for it. But in defined cases the law does not ask about fault.
Damage caused by your employee, a flowerpot falling from your building, your dog biting someone, an accident involving your car. This article sets out the principal cases of strict liability and how a defendant can escape it.
What Strict Liability Is
Strict liability is liability that does not require fault on the part of the person who caused the loss. In defined situations the law holds a person directly liable.
The idea behind it: whoever benefits from an activity, or controls a source of danger, should also bear the losses that activity causes.
Its most important practical effect is the shift in the burden of proof. The injured party does not have to prove the other side was at fault; the party seeking to escape liability must produce the exculpatory proof the law requires.
An Employer's Liability
An employer is liable for the loss their employee causes to third parties in the course of the work. That liability rests not on the employee's fault but on the employer's duty of care.
To escape it, the employer must prove:
- that they took the necessary care in selecting the employee
- that they took the necessary care in instructing and supervising them
- that they organised the undertaking so as to prevent the loss
- or that the loss would have occurred even had that care been taken
The injured party may claim against the employee and the employer alike. The employer may then claim over against the employee to the extent of their fault.
This liability is not confined to those under a contract of employment: it can arise for anyone working in fact under another's instructions.
The Owner of a Building
The owner of a building or structure is liable for loss caused by a defect in its construction or a failure in its maintenance.
This liability is strict indeed: the owner cannot escape by proving absence of fault. They can only show that the loss was caused by force majeure, by the injured party's gross fault, or by a third party's gross fault, so that the chain of causation is broken.
Common examples: plaster or a flowerpot falling from a facade, a lift cable failing, a fall on a neglected staircase, accidents caused by snow and ice left uncleared.
Alongside the owner, the holder of a usufruct and in some cases a tenant may be liable; where liability lies depends on who has actual control.
Animal Keepers and Vehicle Operators
The keeper of an animal is liable for the loss it causes. To escape, they must prove that they took the necessary care in keeping it under control. Dog bites and collisions with animals on the road are the commonest cases.
The operator of a motor vehicle is liable under the Highway Traffic Act for loss arising from the operation of the vehicle, without any question of fault. It is the classic case of liability for dangerous activities.
That liability is backed by compulsory motor third-party insurance, and the injured party may claim directly against the insurer.
“Operator” is not confined to the registered owner: a person who uses the vehicle on their own account and at their own risk can also be the operator.
Under strict liability the injured party does not have to prove fault. It is the defendant who must produce the exculpatory proof — and for a building owner even that is not available: only force majeure or another's gross fault, breaking the chain of causation, will do.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does strict liability change in practice?
The burden of proof. The injured party need not prove fault; the defendant must produce the exculpatory proof the law requires.
Am I liable for what my employee does?
Yes, for loss caused to third parties in the course of the work — unless you prove care in selection, instruction and supervision and in organising the undertaking, or that the loss would have happened anyway. You may then claim over against the employee.
Can a building owner say they were not at fault?
No. Absence of fault is no defence; only force majeure, or the gross fault of the injured party or a third party breaking the chain of causation, will end the liability.
Who is liable for a dog bite?
The keeper of the animal, unless they prove they took the necessary care in keeping it under control.
Who is the “operator” of a vehicle?
Not necessarily the registered owner: anyone using the vehicle on their own account and at their own risk. Their liability is backed by compulsory insurance, which the injured party can claim against directly.