In Van , 9, was destroyed in the earthquake that occurred in November 2011 to the heirs of the Bayram Hotel , the hotel lost their lives in the ruins filed by the family of Muhammad Abdullah ÇİFTÇİBAŞI has resulted in pecuniary damages and lawsuits .
In Van , 9, was destroyed in the earthquake that occurred in November 2011 to the heirs of the Bayram Hotel , the hotel lost their lives in the ruins filed by the family of Muhammad Abdullah ÇİFTÇİBAŞI has resulted in pecuniary damages and lawsuits . court ; company and the heirs of the deceased ÇİFTÇİBAŞI 504 to 286 thousand pounds compensation of material and moral decided .
in Van on 23 October 2011 occurred 7.2 magnitude earthquake followed by 9 in November 2011 experienced magnitude of 5.6 on the second destroyed in the earthquake , and between DHA reporters Sebahattin Yilmaz and Cem Emir also 24 people with grave Siddiqui's own deceased Mehmet Bayram Bayram hotel , Trade and Industry Limited Company with a feast on the 17th heir , who died in the wreckage remained by the family of Muhammad Abdullah ÇİFTÇİBAŞI pecuniary damages and sued . Van 3 rd Civil Court in the case, the rights in the material and moral compensation lawsuit filed defendant company and the heirs'attorneys, Mehmet Siddik Day is the son of the hotel's operators Tevfik Bayram's all due diligence , although Van occurring in the second earthquake in the hotel were destroyed and many people under the debris remaining lives lost , the case as unfair is opened , abstract arguments on the basis of the lawsuit denial decision has demanded .
during the trial, the 3rd Court of First Instance , the collapsed Bayram Oteli'yl regarding the 4th Civil Court'in the expert report took account of another case . This expert report , the hotel's collapse under the scientific mesulü 35 percent , Van Municipality , 28 percent , of the contractor 21 percent , hotel operators 8 percent , MoEU 6 percent , AFAD 2 percent of the responsibilities that there was specified.
end of the trial the 3rd Court of First Instance of the company and heir , hotel wreckage died ÇİFTÇİBAŞI to the family of 115 thousand 289 TL material , 165 thousand pounds spiritual , 6 thousand 215 pounds funeral expenses , including legal interest, except for the total of 286 thousand 504 pounds compensation It was decided to pay . The court reasoned decision is said:
\"The Supreme Court's settled case-law according to this responsibility lens care Violation of the obligation in the nature of aggravated strict liability state. Accordingly, the injured party , the structure of the owner flaws to prove it does not have . Structure Maliki defect in the absence of defense beyond appropriate causal link cut should prove that . Strict liability on the causal link can be trimmed suffered severe defects in the absence of or a 3rd person causal cut capable of a severe defect is or zararlandırıc results to occur in an unforeseen state must have . \"
state Council departments the decision by referring to the current reasoned decision, \"Van earthquake event, the defendant's responsibility for eliminating , the causal link that cuts the state has not been evaluated . defendant owned buildings by the side of buildings located in the city center , thousands of buildings remained robust or loss of life will not cause Having survived the earthquake with damages on the defendants owned buildings demolished during the earthquake has caused the death of many people . Again, the earthquake is a phenomenon , the subject of litigation where the event occurred in Van, second-degree earthquake zone remains within the building during the construction of the earthquake as a phenomenon taken into consideration , whereas resistant buildings should be built , but the defendant that fulfill the requirements of the building which has been constructed or move understood that all files from the scope is understood \"the statement said .
resolution, the operator hotel is admitted to the customers life and property, provide security is accountable also indicated ,\"in the case file , the hotel operator first after the earthquake for a certain period to the hotel customers were considered , although DEMP may apply for the examination of hotel requested declared that although the response from AFAD , the institution stated that any contact is made . AFAD outside a formal institution or seismic performance issues expert in a private company building incelettiril , but merely located in the building by the bank superficial examination has been undertaken verbal information beyond the respondent party hotel for any examination made as to whether to file the document was not submitted , \"the opinion was given .