The 10th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals decided in its decision dated 30.5.1995 numbered 4641/5019 that / In order to be considered as an occupational accident the service contract must be present according to the definition of the Code of Obligations between the injured and the employer Y. According to the Supreme Court; Esi 5510/6 ir is not considered as an insured person, it is not possible to accept an accident as a work accident.

Suicide is the intention of ending one’s life, deliberately and intentionally acting against the outcome of the person. Workers working as insured are considered to be work accidents according to judicial decisions. As a matter of fact, in the light of the Social Security Institution and the judicial decisions, it is obvious that such incidents are considered as work accidents. It is not important that the worker deliberately slaughter himself with his own will and that he should not end his life by his own will with a healthier expression and is considered as an accident at the workplace. It is not important to consider suicide as a work accident. Here only suicide is mentioned, the cause of suicide is not investigated. The Supreme Court in its decisions clearly and consistently acknowledges that committing suicide at work is considered a work accident.

Practices Concerning Short-Term Insurance Branches of Social Insurance and General Health Insurance Law No. 5510 The suicide in workplace is also considered as work accident. . Yer Events occurring at the time when the insured is in the workplace must be considered as an occupational accident regardless of whether the work is related to the work performed. In this respect, the insured people fall in the yard while falling, sprained his foot while playing ball in the rest hour, falling from his hand while eating fruit in the garden, cut his hand while eating, poisoning from the stove while resting in the rest room, suicide in the workplace, drowning in the pool at the workplace where he worked while he was on leave. the accidents that the employees of the vehicles will spend in these vehicles will be accepted as work accidents.

The liability of the employer due to accidents is limited as a serious defect of the injured. A severe flaw can be mentioned if the cause of the causal relationship is caused by the employee’s own behavior and severity of causality is cut off completely. If the employee has not shown the simplest basic and basic care which is expected of him during the performance of the work, his / her behavior will cause the employer to be removed. Although the causal link of the employee’s imperfect behavior does not cut exactly, the common cause-effect relationship may be mentioned and the defect and compensation reduction may be considered as a possibility.

Therefore, the connection between the work accident and the processing of the verb is broken. Therefore, as the employer cannot be held liable for the loss of the occupational accident, compensation for the damage cannot be sought.

DECISION OF RELATED JURISDICTION

10th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 5.7.2004 T., 2004/4465 E., 2004/6425 K.

Isı ısı the case, the institution insured F.K. Working in the workplace, working in the workplace, leaving the job close to the end of the workplace in the attic of the workplace in the dormitory hanging itself in the workplace, so that the insurance incident is claimed to be due to the accident. Ir Therefore, it is not always compulsory for the insured to operate under the responsibility of the employer if the security of the insured takes the necessary measures for physical and mental health. It is possible to note that even if an incident and a situation are not of such interest or relationship, an event occurring can be considered as an occupational accident. For example, if the suicide act occurred in the workplace, even if the incident occurred only at the workplace, the suicide is not related to the work of the insured and the failure of the employer, but according to the clarity of Article 110 of the Law No. 506, the incident is still an occupational accident.