Criminal Liability in Traffic Accidents: Negligent Injury and Homicide

An injury or death in a traffic accident may trigger a criminal investigation even if the driver did not act intentionally. This article explains negligence, the effect of the degree of fault on punishment, and how the process works.

Negligence and Its Place in Traffic Accidents

Article 22 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK) defines negligence as causing a consequence specified in the legal definition of an offense without foreseeing it due to a breach of the duty of care and attention. Most traffic accidents are assessed under negligent offenses because drivers cause them through inattention, lack of precaution, or failure to follow rules rather than intent. If an accident causes injury or death, a criminal investigation is opened against the driver at fault under Article 85 TCK (negligent homicide) or Article 89 TCK (negligent injury).

Effect of Degree of Fault (Primary/Secondary Fault) on Sentence

The degree of fault established by forensic or expert reports plays a central role in determining civil and criminal liability. Accident analysis reports generally classify drivers as “primarily at fault,” “secondarily at fault,” or “not at fault”:

• Primary fault: A serious breach of traffic rules constituting the accident’s principal and decisive cause (for example, running a red light or crossing into the oncoming lane).
• Secondary fault: A less serious breach that contributed to the accident without being its principal cause.

Under Article 61 TCK, when fixing the particular sentence, the judge must consider the gravity of the offender’s intent or negligence, how the offense was committed, and the seriousness of the harm. In practice, a driver found primarily at fault tends to receive a heavier sentence than a driver secondarily at fault; as the degree of fault rises, the likelihood of setting the basic sentence closer to the upper limit also increases. A timely, reasoned objection to the expert fault report is therefore a critical stage that may directly affect the outcome.

Conscious Negligence and Increased Punishment

Article 22/3 TCK defines “conscious negligence” as a result foreseen by the offender occurring despite their not wanting it, and provides for increasing the sentence for a negligent offense by between one third and one half. Conduct commonly cited in traffic cases includes:

• Driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotic/stimulant substances;
• Driving at excessive speed, particularly far above limits in a residential area;
• Deliberate and repeated dangerous driving, such as running red lights or weaving between lanes;
• Driving without a licence together with a traffic-rule violation.

Although the driver may truly have “not wanted an accident,” accepting the risk despite being able to foresee that dangerous conduct could cause one can lead to a substantial increase in punishment. Articles 85/2 and 89/4 TCK also provide for higher penalties in circumstances such as the death or injury of several people, or the death of one person together with injury to one or more others.

Whether Negligent Injury and Homicide Depend on a Complaint

Under Article 89/5 of the Turkish Criminal Code, the investigation and prosecution of negligent injury depend, as a rule, on a complaint. Where the offence is committed with conscious negligence the statute dispenses with the complaint requirement, but it expressly keeps “injury falling within the first paragraph” outside that exception. Accordingly, in injuries that can be remedied by simple medical intervention (Article 89/1) a complaint is required even where the act was committed with conscious negligence; where the injury falls within Article 89/2, 89/3 or 89/4 and the act was committed with conscious negligence, the investigation is conducted of the authorities' own motion without any complaint. For that reason, even in classic examples of conscious negligence such as drunk driving, the first step is to establish by forensic report which paragraph the injury falls within. Negligent homicide (Article 85), by contrast, does not depend on a complaint; where a person loses their life in a traffic accident, whether the relatives complain does not affect the commencement or continuation of the investigation, and the prosecution acts of its own motion.

Effect of No Complaint or Withdrawal by the Victim

In complaint-dependent cases of injury through ordinary negligence, failure to complain or withdrawal during trial may lead to dismissal of the case. Important exceptions include:

• Where the injury falls within Article 89/2, 89/3 or 89/4 and the act was committed with conscious negligence (for example an accident caused by a drunk driver that results in a bone fracture), withdrawal of the complaint does not end the case; where the injury remains within Article 89/1, by contrast, a complaint is required even if the act was committed with conscious negligence, and withdrawal of the complaint takes effect,
• In negligent homicide, relatives’ statement that “we do not complain” does not legally end the case, although the court may consider it a discretionary reason for sentence reduction under Article 62 TCK;
• Settlement procedures may also apply to complaint-dependent offenses; if the parties agree, a decision not to prosecute or to dismiss the case may follow.

Importance of Managing the Process Properly

After a traffic accident, correctly preparing the accident report, objecting to an expert fault assessment in time with reasons, checking the procedural validity of alcohol or drug test results, and considering settlement with the victim or relatives for complaint-dependent offenses can directly affect the outcome for both driver and victim.

Conclusion

Criminal liability for a traffic accident is closely tied to technical factors such as the degree of fault and whether negligence was ordinary or conscious. Drivers and victims are advised to seek assistance from a criminal lawyer as soon as possible to use deadlines for challenging a fault report and rights of complaint correctly.

This article is for general information and does not replace legal advice. We recommend consulting a lawyer about your case.