Comparison of the Concept of Fault in Terms of Tort and Crime According To Classical Crime Doctrine
Leyla Müjde Kurt, Fahri Gökçen TanerFault is a common element necessary for both crime and tort. However, the meaning of this common concept may differ in terms of crime within the framework of classical doctrine and tort. As a matter of fact, according to Art. 74/1 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, a civil judge is independent of the principles of criminal law in terms of determining fault in terms of acts that may constitute both crime and tort. The subject of this study is a comparison of the meanings of the concept of fault in terms of tort and crime, according to classical crime doctrine. In this study, the differences and similarities between the approaches of criminal and civil law to this concept are revealed. Defining a person guilty is a more severe judgment than defining a person as debtor. On the other hand, depriving a person of his/her liberty is a more severe sanction than making him/her pay compensation. For these reasons, the conditions for a person being condemned for an unlawful act are more severe in criminal law than in civil law. Although the rule states that acts committed with fault at the level of intent give rise to criminal liability and that negligence is exceptional, even slight negligence is sufficient for tort liability to arise. It is easier to accept the existence of fault in the field of tort, where the objectified understanding of fault is dominant and the individual excuses of the tortfeasor are not considered in determining fault, compared to criminal law, where the subjective understanding of fault is dominant and the individual abilities and characteristics of the perpetrator are considered in determining fault.
Kusur Kavramının Haksız Fiil ve Klasik Suç Öğretisine Göre Suç Bakımından Karşılaştırılması
Leyla Müjde Kurt, Fahri Gökçen TanerKusur gerek klasik suç öğretisine göre suç bakımından gerekse de haksız fiil bakımından varlığı gerekli olan ortak bir unsurdur. Ancak bu ortak kavrama verilen anlam klasik öğreti çerçevesinde suç bakımından ve haksız fiil bakımından farklılık arz edebilmektedir. Nitekim TBK m. 74 f. 1’de hem suç hem haksız fiil teşkil edebilecek fiiller bakımından hukuk hâkiminin kusurun tayini bakımından ceza hukuku prensiplerinden bağımsız olduğu belirtilmiştir. Bu çalışmanın konusunu kusur kavramının haksız fiil ile klasik suç öğretisine göre suç bakımından ifade ettiği anlamların karşılaştırılması teşkil etmektedir. Çalışmada ceza hukukunun ve medenî hukukun bu kavrama yaklaşım biçimleri arasındaki farklar ve benzerlikler ortaya konulmuştur. Bir kişinin suçlu olarak nitelendirilmesi borçlu olarak nitelendirilmesine nazaran daha ağır bir yargıdır. Öte yandan, kişinin özgürlüğünden mahrum bırakılması kişiye tazminat ödettirilmesinden daha ağır bir yaptırımdır. Bu nedenlerle, kişinin sergilediği hukuka aykırı davranış nedeniyle kınanmasının koşulları ceza hukukunda medenî hukuka nazaran daha ağırdır. Ceza hukukunda kural kasten işlenmiş fiillerin cezaî sorumluluk doğurması olup taksirli sorumluluk istisnaî olduğu halde, haksız fiil sorumluluğunun doğması için failin hafif ihmali dahi yeterlidir. Objektifleştirilmiş kusur anlayışının hâkim olduğu, failin bireysel mazeretlerinin kusurluluğun tayininde dikkate alınmadığı haksız fiil alanında kusurun varlığının kabulü, sübjektif kusur anlayışının hâkim olduğu, kusurun tayininde failin bireysel yetenek ve özelliklerinin dikkate alındığı ceza hukukuna nazaran daha kolaydır.
A fault is a common element that is necessary for both crime and tort. However, the meaning of this common concept may differ in terms of crime and tort. As a matter of fact, according to Art. 74/1 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, a civil judge is independent of the principles of criminal law in terms of determining fault in terms of acts that may constitute both crime and tort. The subject of this study is a comparison of the meanings of the concept of fault in terms of tort and crime. In this study, the differences and similarities between the approaches of criminal and civil law to this concept are revealed. Defining a person guilty is a more severe judgment than defining a person as debtor. On the other hand, depriving a person of his/her liberty is a more severe sanction than making him/her pay compensation. For these reasons, the conditions for a person being condemned for an unlawful act are more severe in criminal law than in civil law.
The main points identified in this study regarding the similarities and differences between the meanings given to the concept of fault in terms of tort and crime are as follows:
• The concept of fault is based on the judgment of condemnation by a legal order in relation to both tort and crime. However, in criminal law, an offender-oriented approach based on individuals is dominant in determining what is condemnable, whereas in civil law, a behavior-oriented approach where social and legal criteria come to the fore is dominant.
• Since fault liability may be insufficient to compensate for damages incurred in some cases, there are cases of strict liability in the field of tort liability. However, in line with the principle of "without fault, there can be no crime", there is no strict liability in the field of criminal law.
• There is no minimum age limit in terms of mental capacity in civil law. It can be concluded that a person who is incapable of imputation because of the minimum age limit stipulated in criminal law has mental capacity in the field of tort and has acted at fault.
• Although, as a rule, an act must be committed with a fault at the level of intent in the field of criminal liability, even slight negligence is sufficient for civil liability to arise. The meaning given to the intent is similar in criminal and civil laws, and it means that the perpetrator/tortfeasor knows the unlawful result and desires or at least takes the risk of the result.
• In criminal law, the subjective understanding of negligence is dominant. Although the duty of care and attention expected from a perpetrator is determined based on an objective criterion, whether the perpetrator can be condemned for not fulfilling this obligation is determined according to individual characteristics. Individual characteristics of a person capable of imputation, such as psychological, mental, physical weaknesses, or lack of talent, may prevent them from accepting the existence of criminal fault. On the other hand, in the field of tort, the measure of negligence has been objectified as a requirement for security in social life. The tortfeasor’s individual inadequacies and excuses were not considered in the assessment of fault. If the tortfeasor, who has mental capacity, deviates from the behavior expected under the same conditions and from the average reasonable type in the social category to which he belongs, it is accepted that he/she is negligent.
• In the case of plurality of tortfeasors, to determine each plaintiff’s share of compensation in the internal relationship, the faults of the people in question must be determined proportionally. Since there is no sharing of responsibility in criminal liability, in the case of multiple perpetrators, there is no need to determine proportional fault.
• The common fault of the victim does not eliminate criminal or civil liability unless it severs the causal link between the perpetrator’s/tortfeasor’s actions and the result, but reduces the amount of punishment and compensation.
• The duty of expert witnesses in both criminal and civil proceedings consists of determining the obligations of the parties, whether they comply with these obligations, and the factors that caused the damage, using a technical dimension within their field of expertise. It is the duty of the judge to evaluate the existence and degree of the fault.
