Occupational Accidents and Crimes of Negligence: Liability Limits

Fatalities or severe injury cases resulting from accidents in industrial facilities, mining sites, or construction zones are among the most tragic and difficult disputes in criminal law regarding fault determination. In these heavy trials conducted under the accusation of “causing death or injury through negligence,” the most significant structural problem encountered is billing the systemic security vulnerabilities of companies or administrations (such as budget constraints or material deficiencies) to the engineers, site managers, or Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) experts present at the scene.

The gravity of the tragedy and the loss of life must not overshadow the principle of “personal culpability,” which is the fundamental pillar of modern criminal law; technical personnel at the middle or lower echelons of the hierarchy must not be declared “scapegoats” to cover up the system’s deficiencies. In this context, the legal defense to be executed regarding occupational accidents and crimes of negligence must be constructed not merely on penal code articles, but through a cross-analysis of labor law, engineering sciences, and the corporate management hierarchy.

Causal Link in Occupational Accidents and Crimes of Negligence

In order for penal liability to arise in negligent offenses (by omission or accident) under Articles 85 and 89 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK) No. 5237, the resulting consequence must have been “foreseeable” by the perpetrator and “preventable” within their scope of authority.

In massive production sites where operations are highly complex, attributing fault solely based on the title of “manager” or “chief” without examining the personnel’s job descriptions, budget control authority, and actual executive power is a clear violation of the right to a fair trial. The legal struggle in these files is generally not against the prosecution, but rather against “erroneous and templated expert reports” prepared by individuals distant from the technical details of the file, looking only at signatures on paper. The sole duty of a criminal defense attorney here is to sever the causal link (nexus) in the accident’s occurrence through scientific opinions, thereby extracting the client from this spiral of fault.

Conscious Negligence vs. Eventual Intent (Dolus Eventualis)

The sharpest legal distinction that determines the amount of the prison sentence the defendants (company executives) will receive in occupational accident trials, and even whether they will actually be incarcerated (suspension/conversion to fines), is which of the parameters the act will be evaluated under: “Simple Negligence,” “Conscious Negligence,” or “Eventual Intent.”

If the employer or site manager foresaw the possibility of an accident but continued the operation relying on chance (or experience) by saying, “nothing will happen anyway, we’ll take our precautions,” the provisions of “Conscious Negligence,” which foresee an increase in the sentence by one-third to one-half, are applied. However, if the employer clearly foresaw that the worker could die but “accepted the risk” (whatever happens, happens) to cut costs, the act falls directly under the scope of “Eventual Intent” (TCK Art. 21), equivalent to murder, and prison sentences can reach life imprisonment proportions. The defense is obligated to construct this fine legal line in favor of its client.

Board of Directors Liability and Delegation of Authority

Following an occupational accident, it is a frequently encountered situation for the board members of a Joint Stock Company (A.Ş.) or Limited Liability Company (Ltd. Şti.) to be tried directly as defendants in a criminal court under the Occupational Health and Safety Law No. 6331. However, the board of directors can be exempted from penal liability through the institution of “Delegation of Authority.” The strategic defense implemented in this process encompasses the following stages:

1. Determining whether the accident was a mere omission, an unforeseeable coincidence, or the “primary fault” of the worker (victim) for violating rules such as not wearing a helmet or safety harness.
2. Proving through commercial registry records whether the employer transferred their OHS responsibilities to the site manager or subcontractor via an internal corporate directive (or contract), and whether they provided an appropriate “budget/financing” for this transfer.
3. Objecting to the unilateral OHS expert reports prepared during the investigation stage with independent “Expert Opinions (CMK 67/6)” obtained from the civil, mining, or mechanical engineering departments of universities.

Defense in negligent offenses arising from occupational accidents is the art of preventing the system’s deficiencies from costing innocent individuals their liberty. For strategic representation in conscious negligence, eventual intent, delegation of authority debates, and objection processes to forensic expert reports, you can contact our expert heavy penal team through the contact section of our website.

Legal Notice and Disclaimer

All articles, analyses, and legal evaluations contained on this website are provided for general informational purposes only and do not, under any circumstances, constitute a formal legal opinion, legal advice, or consultancy intended to be applied to a specific dispute or legal situation.

Due to the dynamic nature of legislation and the unique material characteristics of each concrete case, our firm accepts no liability for any loss of rights that may arise from actions taken or decisions made in reliance upon these texts.

You may contact us directly to have your legal problems resolved, to obtain a professional legal opinion based on your specific case file, or to schedule an appointment for verbal consultancy services.