Yarg\u0131tay 13. Hukuk Dairesi bir vatanda\u015f\u0131n \u00e7antas\u0131n\u0131n \u00e7al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 al\u0131\u015fveri\u015f merkezi aleyhine a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 75 bin lira tazminat davas\u0131n\u0131 reddeden yerel mahkemenin karar\u0131n\u0131 bozdu ve AVM’nin bundan sorumlu oldu\u011funu belirtti.<\/b><\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/b>Gazeteci G\u00fclperi Er\u00e7eting\u00f6z, 4 Nisan 2009’da, k\u0131z\u0131yla \u00dcmraniye’de bir al\u0131\u015fveri\u015f merkezine gitti. Er\u00e7eting\u00f6z, elektronik b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcnde al\u0131\u015fveri\u015f yaparken \u00e7antas\u0131n\u0131, al\u0131\u015fveri\u015f yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 sepetli araban\u0131n i\u00e7ine koydu. K\u0131sa bir s\u00fcre sonra \u00e7antas\u0131n\u0131n \u00e7al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 fark eden ve k\u0131z\u0131yla birlikte ma\u011fazan\u0131n g\u00fcvenlik personeline ba\u015fvuran Er\u00e7eting\u00f6z, al\u0131\u015fveri\u015f yaparken kendisini takip eden bir \u015fah\u0131stan \u015f\u00fcphelendi\u011fini belirterek, bu ki\u015finin yakalanmas\u0131 i\u00e7in kap\u0131lar\u0131n kapat\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 ve g\u00fcvenlik kameralar\u0131na bak\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 talep etti.Bu talebi kabul edilmeyen G\u00fclperi Er\u00e7eting\u00f6z, h\u0131rs\u0131zl\u0131k olay\u0131n\u0131n ya\u015fanmas\u0131ndan bir s\u00fcre sonra avukat\u0131 \u00d6mer Durak arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131yla \u0130stanbul 3. T\u00fcketici Mahkemesi’nde, h\u0131rs\u0131zl\u0131ktan do\u011fan zarar\u0131n\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131lanmas\u0131 i\u00e7in tazminat davas\u0131 a\u00e7t\u0131.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
18 B\u0130N L\u0130RA DE\u011eER\u0130NDE PIRLANTA Y\u00dcZ\u00dcK<\/strong><\/p>\n Dava dilek\u00e7esinde, \u00e7al\u0131nan \u00e7antan\u0131n i\u00e7inde “18 bin lira de\u011ferinde tek ta\u015f p\u0131rlantal\u0131 alt\u0131n y\u00fcz\u00fck, 2 bin liral\u0131k iki cep telefonu, \u015fahsi araca ait kontak anahtar\u0131, ruhsat, 700 lira nakit para, 600 lira de\u011ferinde makyaj malzemesi ve iki g\u00fcne\u015f g\u00f6zl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc” bulundu\u011fu belirtilerek, daval\u0131 \u015firket y\u00f6neticilerince, g\u00fcvenlik kameralar\u0131ndan h\u0131rs\u0131z\u0131n e\u015fgalinin belirlenmesi talebinin, “ma\u011fazan\u0131n i\u00e7inde g\u00fcvenlik kameras\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131” gerek\u00e7esiyle reddedildi\u011fi aktar\u0131ld\u0131.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Davada tan\u0131k olarak dinlenilen davac\u0131 G\u00fclperi Er\u00e7eting\u00f6z’\u00fcn k\u0131z\u0131, “annesinin 18 bin liral\u0131k y\u00fcz\u00fckle al\u0131\u015fveri\u015f yapmak istemedi\u011fi i\u00e7in \u00e7antas\u0131na koydu\u011fu, avizelerin reyonunda \u00e7antay\u0131 arabaya b\u0131rakt\u0131\u011f\u0131, arabay\u0131 kendisinin tuttu\u011fu, avizeleri se\u00e7erken 15 saniye i\u00e7inde arkas\u0131n\u0131 d\u00f6nd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc s\u0131rada \u00e7antan\u0131n al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 fark etti\u011fi ve g\u00fcvenlik g\u00f6revlisine bildirip \u015f\u00fcpheliyi ki\u015fiyi s\u00f6yledi\u011fi”ni ifade etti. Er\u00e7eting\u00f6z’\u00fcn k\u0131z\u0131, ma\u011faza yetkililerinin olay\u0131n kapanmas\u0131 i\u00e7in kendilerine 5 bin liral\u0131k hediye \u00e7eki teklif etti\u011fini ve \u00e7antan\u0131n fiyat\u0131yla bile e\u015fde\u011fer olmayan bu teklifi reddediklerini anlatt\u0131.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n DAVACI VE E\u015e\u0130 GAZETEC\u0130 OLDU\u011eU \u0130\u00c7\u0130N<\/strong><\/p>\n Davay\u0131 karara ba\u011flayan \u0130stanbul 3. T\u00fcketici Mahkemesi Hakimi Sevtap Kaya, davan\u0131n reddine ve mahkeme masraflar\u0131n\u0131n davac\u0131 Er\u00e7eting\u00f6z’\u00fcn \u00fczerinde b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verdi. Gerek\u00e7eli kararda, davac\u0131n\u0131n e\u015fyalar\u0131n\u0131n g\u00fcvenli\u011finden sorumlu oldu\u011fu vurgulanarak, daval\u0131 ma\u011fazan\u0131n, al\u0131\u015fveri\u015f i\u00e7in i\u015f yerine gelen m\u00fc\u015fterinin mal g\u00fcvenli\u011fini, \u00f6zellikle kendi muhafazas\u0131na terk edilmi\u015f bir e\u015fyas\u0131n\u0131, asgari \u00f6zen y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde korumak ve kollamak y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc bulundu\u011fu kaydedildi. <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n “Davac\u0131 kendi muhafazas\u0131nda olan \u00e7antas\u0131n\u0131 al\u0131\u015fveri\u015f yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 ma\u011fazaya ait al\u0131\u015fveri\u015f arabas\u0131n\u0131n i\u00e7ine kontrols\u00fcz olarak b\u0131rakarak \u00e7al\u0131nmas\u0131na imkan vermi\u015ftir. Beyanlara g\u00f6re \u00e7antan\u0131n kendisi ve i\u00e7indekiler \u00e7ok de\u011ferlidir. Davac\u0131n\u0131n kendisi ve e\u015finin gazeteci oldu\u011fu, davac\u0131 vekilinin beyanlar\u0131ndan anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. T\u00fcrkiye’de ve \u00f6zellikle \u0130stanbul’da al\u0131\u015fveri\u015f merkezlerinde al\u0131\u015fveri\u015f arabalar\u0131na m\u00fc\u015fterilerin \u00f6zel e\u015fyalar\u0131n\u0131n konulmamas\u0131 i\u00e7in s\u0131kl\u0131kla anonslar\u0131n yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, m\u00fc\u015fterilerin uyar\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 bilinmektedir. Davac\u0131 ve e\u015fi gazeteci oldu\u011fu i\u00e7in s\u0131k s\u0131k yaz\u0131l\u0131 ve g\u00f6rsel bas\u0131nda al\u0131\u015fveri\u015f arabalar\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan h\u0131rs\u0131zl\u0131klara ili\u015fkin haberlerin \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bunlardan haberdar olduklar\u0131n\u0131 kabul etmek gerekir. Davac\u0131 kendi muhafazas\u0131nda bulunan, i\u00e7inde de\u011ferli e\u015fyalar\u0131n\u0131n bulundu\u011fu, s\u0131rf kendisi bile de\u011ferli olan \u00e7antas\u0131n\u0131 al\u0131\u015fveri\u015f arabas\u0131n\u0131n i\u00e7ine b\u0131rakt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 beyan etmi\u015ftir. \u00dcstelik davac\u0131n\u0131n tan\u0131k olan k\u0131z\u0131n\u0131n ifadelerinde, kendilerini takip eden \u015f\u00fcpheli bir \u015fahs\u0131n arkalar\u0131ndan ma\u011faza i\u00e7inde kendilerini takip etti\u011fi, al\u0131\u015fveri\u015f arabas\u0131n\u0131n \u00fczerinden uzanarak reyondan malzeme almaya \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6rd\u00fcklerini ancak \u00f6nemsemediklerini s\u00f6ylemi\u015flerdir. Bu dahi \u00e7antan\u0131n \u00e7al\u0131nmas\u0131nda davac\u0131n\u0131n olayda a\u011f\u0131r kusurlu oldu\u011funu g\u00f6stermektedir.”<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n YARGITAY’IN MAL G\u00dcVENL\u0130\u011e\u0130 KR\u0130TER\u0130<\/strong><\/p>\n Davac\u0131 G\u00fclperi Er\u00e7eting\u00f6z’\u00fcn avukat\u0131 \u00d6mer Durak, yerel mahkemenin karar\u0131n\u0131 temyiz etti. <\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u00d6ZENL\u0130 DAVRANMAK ZORUNDA<\/strong><\/p>\n Y\u00fcksek Mahkeme’nin karar\u0131n\u0131 de\u011ferlendiren G\u00fclperi Er\u00e7eting\u00f6z’\u00fcn avukat\u0131 \u00d6mer Durak, Yarg\u0131tay’\u0131n karar\u0131n\u0131n marka ve belirli tan\u0131nm\u0131\u015fl\u0131\u011fa ula\u015fm\u0131\u015f ma\u011fazalar\u0131n, m\u00fc\u015fteri g\u00fcvenli\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan \u00e7ok daha \u00f6zenli davranmak zorunda olduklar\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6sterdi\u011fini ifade etti.Durak, “Bu karar\u0131n kesinle\u015fmesinden sonra b\u00fct\u00fcn b\u00fcy\u00fck ma\u011fazalarda olu\u015fabilecek h\u0131rs\u0131zl\u0131k olaylar\u0131nda ma\u011fazalar\u0131n sorumlulu\u011fu s\u00f6z konusu olabilecek ve bu karar i\u00e7tihat haline gelebilecektir” dedi.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Yarg\u0131tay 13. Hukuk Dairesi bir vatanda\u015f\u0131n \u00e7antas\u0131n\u0131n \u00e7al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 al\u0131\u015fveri\u015f merkezi aleyhine a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 75 bin lira tazminat davas\u0131n\u0131 reddeden yerel mahkemenin karar\u0131n\u0131 bozdu ve AVM’nin bundan sorumlu oldu\u011funu belirtti. Gazeteci G\u00fclperi Er\u00e7eting\u00f6z, 4 Nisan 2009’da, k\u0131z\u0131yla \u00dcmraniye’de bir al\u0131\u015fveri\u015f merkezine gitti. Er\u00e7eting\u00f6z, elektronik b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcnde al\u0131\u015fveri\u015f yaparken \u00e7antas\u0131n\u0131, al\u0131\u015fveri\u015f yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 sepetli araban\u0131n i\u00e7ine koydu. K\u0131sa bir […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[25,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-54920","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-erzurum-haber","category-gundem"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.erzhaber.com.tr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54920","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.erzhaber.com.tr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.erzhaber.com.tr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.erzhaber.com.tr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.erzhaber.com.tr\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=54920"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.erzhaber.com.tr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54920\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.erzhaber.com.tr\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=54920"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.erzhaber.com.tr\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=54920"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.erzhaber.com.tr\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=54920"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\nDilek\u00e7ede, 25 bin lira maddi ve 50 bin lira manevi olmak \u00fczere toplam 75 bin lira tazminat\u0131n, hizmet kusuru bulunan daval\u0131 \u015firketten al\u0131narak davac\u0131 Er\u00e7eting\u00f6z’e verilmesi talep edildi.Daval\u0131 \u015firket taraf\u0131ndan mahkemeye sunulan cevap dilek\u00e7esinde, ma\u011fazada her t\u00fcrl\u00fc g\u00fcvenlik \u00f6nleminin bulundu\u011fu belirtildi.<\/p>\n
\nKararda, ancak ki\u015finin kendi kusuru ile sebep oldu\u011fu zarara katlanmas\u0131n\u0131n genel hukuk ilkelerinden oldu\u011fu hat\u0131rlat\u0131larak \u015f\u00f6yle devam edildi:<\/p>\n
\nYarg\u0131tay 13. Hukuk Dairesi, yerel mahkemenin karar\u0131n\u0131 davac\u0131 lehine oybirli\u011fiyle bozdu. Y\u00fcksek Mahkeme’nin gerek\u00e7eli karar\u0131nda, s\u0131radan bir i\u015f yeri olmayan daval\u0131 \u015firkete ait ma\u011fazan\u0131n, gelen m\u00fc\u015fterinin mal g\u00fcvenli\u011fini ve \u00f6zellikle kendi muhafazas\u0131na terk edilmi\u015f bir e\u015fyas\u0131n\u0131 asgari \u00f6zen y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcyle korumak ve kollamak zorunda bulundu\u011fu kaydedildi.Kararda, daval\u0131 \u015firkete ait i\u015f yerine gelen m\u00fc\u015fterinin yap\u0131lan reklam ve hizmete g\u00fcvenerek geldi\u011fi, m\u00fc\u015fterilerin daval\u0131n\u0131n hakimiyeti alan\u0131nda oldu\u011fu ve m\u00fc\u015fterilerin zararland\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 eylemlerden korunmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi kabul\u00fcn\u00fcn zorunlu oldu\u011fu vurguland\u0131.\u0130\u015f yerlerinin \u00f6ncelikle ki\u015filerin ki\u015fisel e\u015fyalar\u0131n\u0131 korumada kendilerinden beklenen \u00f6zeni g\u00f6sterdiklerini kan\u0131tlamalar\u0131n\u0131n gerekti\u011fi ve sonras\u0131nda da taraflar\u0131n olayda kusur ve sorumlulu\u011funun incelenmesi gerekti\u011fi belirtilen kararda, “Maddi tazminat istemi y\u00f6n\u00fcnden taraflar\u0131n m\u00fcterafik kusur oranlar\u0131n\u0131n tespiti y\u00f6n\u00fcnde inceleme yap\u0131larak has\u0131l olunacak sonuca uygun bir karar verilmesi gerekirken, yaz\u0131l\u0131 gerek\u00e7e ile davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmesi, usul ve yasaya ayk\u0131r\u0131 olup bozmay\u0131 gerektirir” denildi.<\/p>\n