Assessing Fault in Terms of Intent and Negligence

Legal Article · 12 November 2026
Av. Thomas Andreas Di Constantinople

Fault means that a departure from legally expected conduct can be attributed to a person. A person acting intentionally desires the result or accepts it within the relevant legal assessment. With negligence, the result is not desired, but the necessary attention and care have not been exercised. This distinction matters to the basis of liability and the determination of compensation.

Expected Care and the Burden of Proof

The assessment does not rest solely on the wrongdoer's statement that they did not expect the outcome. The conduct reasonably expected of a prudent and careful person in the circumstances must be investigated. In professional activities, the nature of the work, expertise, and applicable duties of care must be considered. Nevertheless, every adverse outcome cannot by itself be treated as proof of negligence.

In tort, the injured person generally proves fault under Article 50 of the Turkish Code of Obligations. For breach of contract, Article 112 establishes a different regime under which the debtor must prove that no fault can be attributed to them. The two regimes cannot be regarded as subject to the same evidentiary rule.

The existence and degree of fault are also separate matters. Gross or slight fault may affect the scope of compensation and validity of exclusion clauses. Where damage is caused by a person lacking capacity of discernment, equitable liability under Article 65 of the Turkish Code of Obligations may arise instead of general fault-based liability.

Source

Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098, Articles 49–52, 65, 112.

This article has been prepared for general legal information purposes.