İngiliz Hukukunda Başkasının Haksız Fiilinden Doğan Sorumluluk (Vicarious Liability) Doktrini Çerçevesinde Otonom Gemilerde Donatan ve Uzak Operatör Arasındaki İlişkinin Değerlendirilmesi

Abstract

Otonom gemilerin geliştirilmesinde temel odak noktası, bu gemilerin değişen derecelerde insan etkileşiminden bağımsız olarak hareket edebilmeleridir. Bununla birlikte bu gemilerin ihtiyaç duyduğu verilerin sağlanması ve arızalanmaları ihtimaline karşı izleme, gözetim, doğrudan kontrol ve teknik destek gibi mekanizmaların işletilebilmesi için her halükarda uzak operasyona da ihtiyaç duyulacaktır. Öte yandan İngiliz hukukunda, uzak operatörlerin haksız fiillerinden doğabilecek zararlar bakımından, donatanın gemi adamlarının haksız fiillerinden doğan zararlardan dolaylı sorumluluğuna ilişkin rejimin uygulanabilirliği sorunu gündeme gelecektir. Zira uzak operatörler, işin ileri derecede teknik nitelik taşıması nedeniyle donatan tarafından kendi bünyesinde istihdam edilebilecekleri gibi, kontrolün devredildiği bir uzak operasyon merkezi yahut zorunlu durumlarda müdahale amacıyla tamamen üçüncü kişi konumunda bulunan uzak operasyon merkezleri aracılığıyla da operasyona dahil olabileceklerdir. Bu durum, uzak operatörlerin bazı hallerde bağımsız yüklenici konumunda değerlendirilmesine yol açabilecektir. İngiliz haksız fiil hukukunda ise işveren, kural olarak bağımsız yüklenicilerin verdiği zararlardan dolaylı olarak sorumlu tutulmamaktadır. Bu çalışma, temel olarak İngiliz hukukunda başkasının haksız fiilinden doğan sorumluluk (vicarious liability) doktrininin, otonom gemilerde donatan ile uzak operatörler arasındaki ilişki bakımından uygulanabilirliğini incelemektedir. Bu kapsamda konu, özellikle taraflar arasındaki ilişkinin bu sorumluluğa yol açmaya elverişli olup olmadığını değerlendiren ilişki testi (relationship test) ile haksız fiil ve söz konusu ilişki arasında yakın bir bağlantı bulunup bulunmadığını inceleyen yakın bağlantı testi (close connection test) çerçevesinde ele alınacaktır. Ayrıca gemilerin denize elverişliliğine doğrudan etkisi bulunan otonom sistemlerin entegrasyonu sürecinde, hangi görevlerin çalışan konumundaki uzak operatörler tarafından yerine getirilmesi gerektiği ve hangilerinin bağımsız yüklenicilere devri ile bu sorumluluğun kapsamı dışında bırakılabileceği üzerinde de durulacaktır.

Keywords

• Otonom Gemiler
• MASS
• Uzak Operatörler
• İngiliz Hukuku
• Haksız Fiil
• Dolaylı Sorumluluk
• Makul Özen
• Kusur
• İhmal

Supporting Institution

Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı

Ethical Statement

Bu araştırma makalesi, yazarın 2026 yılında Swansea Üniversitesi’nde tamamladığı “The Implications of Artificial Intelligence and Related Emerging Technologies on Ship Operations: Civil Liability and Insurance Considerations” başlıklı doktora tezinin ilgili bölümünün geliştirilmesi suretiyle hazırlanmıştır.

An Assessment of the Relationship Between the Shipowner and the Remote Operator on Autonomous Ships within the Framework of Vicarious Liability under English Law

Abstract

The primary focus in the development of autonomous ships is their ability to operate, to varying degrees, independently of human interaction. Nevertheless, remote operation will still be required to provide the data needed by such ships and to enable mechanisms such as monitoring, supervision, direct control and technical support to function in response to system failures. Under English law, however, the question arises whether the regime governing the shipowner’s vicarious liability for losses and damages caused by the tortious acts of seafarers may also be applied to those arising from the tortious acts of remote operators. This is because remote operators may either be employed directly within the shipowner’s own sphere of business due to the highly technical nature of their work, or become involved in the operation through a remote operations centre to which control has been transferred, or through entirely third-party remote operations centres intervening in situations of emergency. In certain circumstances, this may result in remote operators being classified as independent contractors. As a general rule under English tort law, an employer is not vicariously liable for losses and damages caused by independent contractors. This study primarily examines the applicability of the doctrine of vicarious liability under English law to the relationship between shipowners and remote operators on autonomous ships. In this context, the issue will be considered particularly through the relationship test, which assesses whether the relationship between the parties is capable of giving rise to vicarious liability, and the close connection test, which examines whether there is a sufficiently close connection between the tort and that relationship. The study will also consider, in the process of integrating autonomous systems that have a direct impact on the seaworthiness of ships, which duties should be undertaken by remote operators acting as employees and which may be delegated to independent contractors and thereby remain outside the scope of such liability.

Keywords

• Autonomous Ships
• MASS
• Remote Operators
• English Law
• Tort Law
• Vicarious Liability
• Reasonable Care
• Fault
• Negligence

References

1. Abbott R, ‘The Reasonable Computer: Disrupting the Paradigm of Tort Liability’ [2018] Geo. Wash. L. Rev., 86.
2. Acampora G ve diğerleri, ‘Quantum Artificial Intelligence: A Survey’ (2026) 59 Computer Science Review 100807
3. Acemoglu D ve Restrepo P, ‘Artificial Intelligence, Automation, and Work’, iç Ajay Agrawal, Joshua Gans, and Avi Goldfarb, The economics of artificial intelligence: An agenda (University of Chicago Press 2018).
4. Akcan H İbrahim, Türk Ticaret Kanunu’ndaki Kaptana Dair Hükümlerin Uzaktan Kumanda Edilen Gemilere Uygulanması (Yetkin Yayınları 2025.
5. Atiyah Vicarious Liability in the Law of Torts (Butterworths, London, 1967) 345.
6. Barfield W ve Barfield J, ‘An Introduction to Law and Algorithms’, iç Woodrow Barfield (ed) The Cambridge Handbook of the Law of Algorithms (Cambridge University Press 2020).
7. Bandi A ve diğerleri, ‘The Rise of Agentic Ai: A Review of Definitions, Frameworks, Architectures, Applications, Evaluation Metrics, and Challenges’ (2025) 17 Future Internet 404.
8. Bathla G ve diğerleri, ‘Autonomous Vehicles and Intelligent Automation: Applications, Challenges, and Opportunities’ (2022) 2022 Mobile Information Systems 7632892.

9. Baughen S, Shipping law (16th edn, Routledge 2015).
10. Bazley v Curry (1999) 2 S.C.R. 534.
11. Bengio Y, Goodfellow I ve Courville A, Deep Learning, (MIT press Cambridge 2016).
12. Cohen J, ‘Non-Deterministic Algorithms’ (1979) 11 ACM Comput Surv 79.
13. Collin F, ‘Unmanned ships and fault as the basis of shipowner’s liability’ iç Henrik Ringbom ve diğerleri (edr) Autonomous Ships and the Law (Routledge, 2020).
14. Ekici Ş, ‘New Proposed Personality Model for Artificial Intelligence: Integrated Personality’ (2025) 7 Bilişim Hukuku Dergisi 311.
15. Giannopoulos G A, ‘The Application of Information and Communication Technologies in Transport’ (2004) 152 European journal of operational research.
16. Guillarme N L and Lerouvreur X, ‘Unsupervised Extraction of Knowledge from S-AIS Data for Maritime Situational Awareness’, Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Information Fusion (2013).
17. Haddadin S ve Knobbe D, ‘Robotics and Artificial Intelligence: The Present and Future Visions’ iç Martin Ebers and Susana Navas (edr), Algorithms and Law (Cambridge University Press 2020).
18. Hogg T ve Ghosh S, ‘Autonomous Merchant Vessels: Examination of Factors That Impact the Effective Implementation of Unmanned Ships’ (2016) 8 Australian Journal of Maritime & Ocean Affairs 206.
19. Johnson C W, ‘The Increasing Risks of Risk Assessment: On the Rise of Artificial Intelligence and NonDeterminism in Safety-Critical Systems’ (The 26th Safety-Critical Systems Symposium, 2018)
20. Jones T H, Turnbull J H ve Williams J M, ‘The Law of Wales or The Law of England and Wales?’ (2005) 26(3) Statute Law Review.
21. McCarthy J ve diğerleri, ‘A Proposal for the Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence, August 31, 1955’ (2006) 27 AI Magazine 12.
22. Morgan P, ‘Recasting Vicarious Liability’ (2012) 71 The Cambridge Law Journal 615.
23. Murphy R ve Burton F, The Legal System of England and Wales (2nd edn, Routledge 2026).
24. Røsæg E, ‘Diabolus ex machina: When an autonomous ship does the unexpected’ iç Henrik Ringbom and others (eds) Autonomous Ships and the Law (Routledge, 2020).
25. Sarı F, ‘Cahit Arf’in “Makine Düşünebilir mi ve Nasıl Düşünebilir?” Adlı Makalesi Üzerine Bir Çalışma’ (2021) 6(13) TRT Akademi 812.
26. Shalev-Shwartz S ve Ben-David S, Understanding Machine Learning: From Theory to Algorithms (Cambridge university press 2014).
27. Shekhar S S, ‘Artificial Intelligence in Automation’ (2019) 3085 Artificial Intelligence 14.
28. Sheridan T B, Telerobotics, Automation, and Human Supervisory Control (MIT Press 1992).
29. Sheridan T B, ‘Chapter 34 Human Supervisory Control’ iç Gavriel Salvendy (ed), Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics (John Wiley & Sons 2012).
30. Stevens F, ‘Seaworthiness and Good Seamanship in the Age of Autonomous Vessels’, iç Henrik Ringbom and others (edr) Autonomous ships and the law (Routledge 2020).
31. Solvang T, ‘Shipowners’ Vicarious Liability under English and Norwegian Law With an Eye to Technical Failure of Autonomous Ships’ [2021] Marius.
32. Sosic G V, TESLA - The Father of RC published by the Academy of Model Aeronautics in The AMA History Project Presents: Biography of Nikola Tesla (2010), Erişim Tarihi 20 Haziran 2026.
33. Soyer B, ‘Autonomous Vessels and Third-Party Liabilities: The Elephant in the Room’, iç Barış Soyer, Andrew Tettenborn (edr) New Technologies, Artificial Intelligence and Shipping Law in the 21st Century (Informa Law from Routledge 2019).
34. Soyer B ve Tettenborn A, ‘Autonomous Ships and Private Law Issues’, iç Baris Soyer and Andrew Tettenborn (edr) Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Shipping: Developing the International Legal Framework (Hart Publishing 2021).
35. Sözer Bülent, ‘Self-Steering Ships’ (2020) 19(2) Galatasaray Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 1345.
36. Andrew Tettenborn (ed), Clerk & Lindsell on Torts (24th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2023).
37. Tettenborn A, ‘Shipping: Product Liability Goes High-Tech’, iç Baris Soyer and Andrew Tettenborn, New Technologies, Artificial Intelligence and Shipping Law in the 21st Century (Informa Law from Routledge 2019).
38. Tettenborn A, ve Kimbell KC J, Marsden and Gault on Collisions at Sea (15th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2021).
39. Tsimplis M, ‘The Liabilities of the Vessel’, iç Yvonne Baatz (ed) Maritime Law (Informa Law from Routledge 2020).
40. Turing A M, ‘Computing Machinery and Intelligence’ (1950) LIX 236 Mind 433.
41. Türk Kübra Var, ‘Gemi Adamı ile Donatılmamış (İnsansız) Gemilerin Deniz Hukuku Boyutuyla Değerlendirilmesi’ (2021) 37 Banka ve Ticaret Hukuku Dergisi 153.
42. Veal V, ‘Autonomous Technology in Shipping: An Increased Role for Negligence Product Liability?’, iç Henrik Ringbom ve diğerleri (edr) Autonomous Ships and the Law (Routledge, 2020).
43. Wei T ve diğerleri, ‘Hybrid Satellite-Terrestrial Communication Networks for the Maritime Internet of Things: Key Technologies, Opportunities, and Challenges’ (2021) 8(11) IEEE Internet of Things Journal 8910.
44. Wrñbel K, Montewka J ve Kujala P, ‘Towards the assessment of potential impact of unmanned vessels on maritime transportation safety’ (2017) 165 Reliability Engineering & System Safety 155.
45. Yaacoub J A ve diğerleri, ‘Cyber-Physical Systems Security: Limitations, Issues and Future Trends’ (2020) 77 Microprocessors and microsystems 103201.
46. Yastrebova A ve diğerleri, ‘Comparative study on GNSS positioning systems for autonomous vessels in the arctic region’ (International Conference on Localization and GNSS CEUR-WS, 2020).
47. Zerilli J ve Weller A, ‘The Technology’, iç Matthew Lavy, Matt Hervey (edr), The Law of Artificial Intelligence (Sweet & Maxwell 2020).
48. Ziatdinov R, Sudhan Atteraya M ve Nabiyev R, ‘The Fifth Industrial Revolution as a Transformative Step Towards Society 5.0’ (2024) 14 Societies 19.
49. Yargı Kararları Barclays Bank Plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13; [2020] 2 W.L.W. 960.
50. Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856) 11 Ex. 781 T, 784.
51. Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582.
52. Bradford-Smart v West Sussex County Council [2002] EWCA Civ 07.
53. Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605.
54. Carter v St Mary Abbot’s Vestry (1900) 64 J.P. 548
55. Coltman v Bibby Tankers Ltd (The Derbyshire) [1988] A.C. 276.
56. Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 10.
57. Davie v. New Merton Board Mills Ltd (1952) AC 604.
58. Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) AC 562.
59. Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Southport Corporation [1956] AC 218.
60. Haseldine v C.A. Daw & Son [1941] 2 K.B. 343.
61. Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465.
62. Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd (No.1) [1995] 2 A.C. 145, (birleştirilmiş dava).
63. Joyce v Capel (1840) 8 C. & P. 370.
64. Kopitoff v Wilson (1876) 1 Q.B.D. 377.
65. Junior Books Ltd v Veitchi [1983] 1 AC 520.
66. Leigh and Sillavan Ltd v Aliakmon Shipping Co Ltd (The Aliakmon) [1986] AC 785.
67. Letang v Cooper [1965] 1 Q.B. 232.
68. Levitt v Euro Building and Maintenance Contractors Ltd [2019] EWCH 2926.
69. Lister and Others v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UKHL 22 [60].
70. Luke v Lyde (1759) 2 Burrow.
71. Marc Rich & Co AG v Bishop Rock Marine Co Ltd (The Nicholas H) [1996] A.C. 211.
72. Market Investigations Ltd v Minister of Social Security [1969] 2 Q.B. 173.
73. Majorowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’s NHS Trust [2006] UKHL 34.
74. Martin v Temperley (1843) 4 Q.B. 298.
75. Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Ltd v Coggins & Griffiths (Liverpool) Ltd and Mac- Farlane [1946] 2 All ER 345.
76. Mobil Oil Hong Kong and Dow Chemical (Hong Kong) v Hong Kong United Dockyards (The Hua Lien) [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep, 309.
77. Old Gate Estates Ltd v Toplis & Harding & Russell [1939] 3 All ER 209.
78. Owners of the SS Heranger v Owners of the SS Diamond (The Heranger) [1939] A.C. 94.
79. Riverstone Meat Company, PTY., Ltd. v Lancashire Shipping Company, Ltd. (The Muncaster Castle) [1959] Lloyd’s Rep 2, [1961] Lloyd’s Rep 1 57 HL.
80. Robinson v Chief Constable of West Workshire [2018] UKSC 4.
81. Robinson v PE Jones Ltd [2011] 2 WLR 815.
82. Short v J. H. Henderson Ltd (1946) 62 T.L.R. 427.
83. The Fogo [1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 208.
84. The Gaetano and Maria (1882) 7 PD 137.
85. The Halley (1868) L.R. 2 P.C. 193, 201.
86. The Pass of Ballater [1942] P. 112.
87. The Voorwaarts and The Khedive (1880) 5 App. Cas 876.
88. Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society (Christian Brothers) [2012] UKSC 56; [2013] 2 AC 1.
89. Viasystems (Tyneside) Ltd v Thermal Transfer (Northern) Ltd and others [2005] EWCA Civ 1151; [2006] QB 510.
90. WHPT Housing Assoc Ltd v Secretary of Stat efor Social Workers [1981] I.C.R. 737.
91. Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co Ltd v English [1938] AC 57
92. Winterbottom v Wright (1842) 10 M&V.
93. Woodland v Essex CC [2013] UKSC 66.
94. Woodward v Mayor of Hastings [1945] K.B. 174.
95. IMO Çalışmaları IMO, ‘Development of a Goal-based Instrument for Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS) Report of the Correspondence Group’ (MSC-108/4 2024)
96. IMO, ‘Development of a Goal-Based Instrument for Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS) Report of the Intersessional MASS Working Group Annex’ (MSC 108/4/1 2024)
97. IMO, E-Navigation Strategy Implementation Plan-Update 1 (MSC. 1/Circ. 1595, 25 Mayıs 2018) 2.
98. IMO, ‘Guidelines on Maritime Cyber Risk Management’ (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.3, 4 Nisan 2025)
99. IMO, ‘International Code of Safety for Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS Code)’ (Resolution MSC.595(111), Annex 16) (MASS Code)
100. IMO, ‘Outcome of the Regulatory Scoping Exercise for the Use of Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS) Annex’ (MSC.1/Circ.1638, 2021) (Regulatory Scoping Exercise)