YARGITAY HUKUK GENEL KURULU KARARI İNCELEMESİ: KARAYOLU İLE YAPILAN TAŞIMALARDA TAŞIYICININ YÜKLEMEYE NEZARET YÜKÜMLÜLÜĞÜ VE TTK M. 863/1 HÜKMÜNÜN NEZARET YÜKÜMLÜĞÜNÜN TESPİTİNDEKİ ROLÜ
Öz
Çalışma, Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulunun, taraflar arasında akdedilen emtia taşımasına ilişkin taşıma sigorta poliçesiyle sigortalı emtianın davalı tarafından İtalya'dan Türkiye'ye hasarlı şekilde taşınması ve bu sebeple sigorta ettirene ödenen tazminat sebebiyle taşıyıcıya rücu talebine ilişkin 13.05.2015 T., 2013/2206 E., 2015/1324 K. sayılı ilamının incelenmesini içermektedir. Çalışmada öncelikle, öne gelen dava hakkında mercilerin vermiş olduğu kararlar aktarılmış, daha sonra özellikle uluslararası nitelik taşıyan taşımalarda, taşıyıcının sorumluluğu ve sorumluluktan kurtulma açısından özel sebepler CMR hükümlerince incelenmiş, sonrasına taşıyıcının nezaret etme yükümlülüğü ve bunun ihlal edilmesinin taşıyıcının sorumluluğuna etkisi açıklanarak müterafik kusur yönünden inceleme yapılmıştır. Türk Hukuku bakımından önem arz eden TTK m. 863 hükmü de taşıyıcının nezaret etme yükümlülüğünün belirlenmesi açısından incelemeye dâhil edilmiştir. Çalışmanın son kısmında ise bu teorik incelemeye istinaden Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu’nun vermiş olduğu karar çeşitli yönlerden irdelenmiştir.
Anahtar Kelimeler
Review of the Decision of the General Assembly of the Court of Cassation: The Carrier's Obligation to Supervision the Loading in Road Transportation and the Role of Article 863/1 of the TCC in Determining the Obligation of Supervise
Öz
The transportation relationship, which has been on the agenda in all periods of time from the early ages of history to this day, has increased especially after the industrial revolution, and today, contracts of carriage made in the nature of commercial business have started to be seen in all areas of our lives. Contract of carriage by road is also widely used. The route of transportation plays an important role in determining the responsibility of the carrier in transportation by road. According to Turkish law, the provisions of CMR shall apply to international carriage of goods by road. In cases where there is no regulation in CMR, the dispute is resolved according to the rules of jurisdiction.
CMR Art. 17/1 regulates the liability of the carrier. CMR Art. 17/2 and 4 regulate the cases where the carrier is released from liability. However, CMR does not regulate who is responsible for loading. Generally, the consignor does the loading, but the loading can also be done by the carrier. According to CMR Art. 17/4-c, the loading of the goods by the consignor, consignee or persons acting on their behalf relieves the carrier from liability. Therefore, it is important who does the loading. Even if the consignor does the loading, the carrier has the obligation to supervise the loading.
CMR does not regulate the obligation of supervision of the carrier. Art. 863/1.c.1 of the TCC regulates that loading is the obligation of the consignor, and the consignor does this according to the safety of transportation. Article 863/1.c.2 of the TCC states that the carrier is obliged to ensure operational safety. In other words, the carrier shall supervise the loading according to operational safety. Safety of transportation and operational safety are different concepts, but it is difficult to separate them from each other. The carrier is not obliged to supervise the safety of transportation. The carrier supervises whether the loading is carried out properly within the framework of operational safety.
Even if the carrier is obliged to supervise the loading in terms of operational safety, it is obliged to notify the consignor in cases where the loading is clearly faulty. In other words, the carrier shall warn the consignor in case the loading is clearly faulty. The basis of this obligation is Article 2 of the Turkish Civil Code. If the carrier fails to notify the consignor, he shall be deemed to be at fault and CMR Art. 17/4-c shall not apply. In other words, the carrier may have to bear the loss.
Similarly, according to Article 17/4-b of CMR, the carrier is relieved from liability for not using the required packaging or for using faulty packaging. This is because the packaging is made by the consignor. Pursuant to Article 10 of CMR, the carrier does not make a special inspection to detect packaging defects. The carrier is only obliged to notify the consignor of packaging defects that are clearly visible from the outside. If the packaging is clearly faulty he may not carry out the transportation.
When the carrier notices faulty loading and packaging, he puts a reservation on the letter of shipment. Thus he can avoid liability, arising from the loss and damage which is concerned with the existing reservation on the transport document. Putting a reservation in the consignment note is important for proof. Thus, the carrier can prove that he warned the consignor. However, he may also prove it with other evidence.
If the carrier fails to warn the consignor or fails to prove that he warned the consignor, he is deemed to be at fault and cannot benefit from special relief from liability. According to CMR Art. 17/5, the carrier is jointly at fault and bears the damage in proportion to its fault. According to this provision, in the event that the damage occurred as a result of the fault and negligence of the carrier and the consignor, the parties shall be liable in proportion to their contribution from the damage. The same situation is also regulated in the Turkish Commercial Code and Art. 52 of the Turkish Civil Code.
Anahtar Kelimeler
