- Introduction
Today, companies organize various social, cultural or sporting events outside working hours in order to increase employee loyalty and motivation. Such events provide significant benefits in terms of employees’ right to rest, their level of relationship with the employer, and the quality of working life. However, accidents occurring during these events give rise to certain controversial legal assessments. In particular, whether such incidents can be considered “work accidents” becomes a subject of debate with respect to employer liability, the scope of work accidents, and social security law.
- Occupational Accidents in Light of Relevant Legislation and Precedent Case Law
In working life, work accidents lead to significant consequences at the intersection of occupational safety and social security law. Although, in its basic sense, a work accident is considered an incident that occurs while the employee is working under the supervision of the employer during working hours, in practice, the legal characterization of accidents occurring during company events organized by the employer outside working hours has been the subject of various judicial decisions.
Under Turkish law, for an incident to be considered a work accident, the elements set forth in Article 13 of Law No. 5510 on Social Insurance and General Health Insurance must first be fulfilled. Accordingly, a work accident is an incident that occurs while the insured person is at the workplace, due to the work carried out by the employer, during periods when the employee working under an employer is assigned outside the workplace, or during transportation to and from work by a vehicle provided by the employer, and that causes bodily or mental harm to the insured person. This definition does not limit the concept of a work accident solely to working hours; rather, it expands it to cover certain periods outside the workplace. However, the situations listed are exhaustive (restrictive), and the law adopts a limiting approach rather than an illustrative one. For an incident to be considered a work accident, it must fall within these situations and an appropriate causal link must be established between the work and the accident.
At the same time, according to the definition in Law No. 6331 on Occupational Health and Safety, a work accident is defined as an incident that occurs “at the workplace or due to the execution of work” and results in bodily or mental harm. This definition associates the employer’s liability by limiting it to workplace conditions and the execution of work. The principle of limited enumeration in determining the situations considered as work accidents in statutory texts leads to various uncertainties in practice.
The main criterion for determining whether events organized outside working hours can legally be considered work accidents is whether they occur “under the authority / organization of the employer,” a principle supported by various precedents of the Court of Cassation. In its recent decision dated 09.05.2024, numbered 2024/3957 E. and 2024/5143 K., the 10th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, in summary, deemed an injury that occurred within a company football team established upon the employer’s instruction and organization to be a work accident, as it took place within the scope of the workplace organization. In this decision, the High Court accepted that the incident should be evaluated within the scope of the employer’s organization by considering factors such as the activity being organized by the company, expenses being covered, and transportation services being provided. This precedent concretely demonstrates that the occurrence of an incident within employer-related activities or company organization constitutes a determining criterion for inclusion within the scope of a work accident.
In another precedent-setting decision dated 17.09.2023, in a lawsuit filed after an employee, who set out to attend a meeting organized by the company he worked for using his private vehicle with the knowledge and approval of the employer, was involved in a traffic accident during the journey, the local court ruled that the incident constituted a work accident. The court accepted that the employee’s participation in the meeting took place within the scope of the employer’s instruction and organization, that the meeting was directly related to the execution of work, and therefore the accident should be evaluated as a work accident within the scope of Article 13 of Law No. 5510 on Social Insurance and General Health Insurance.
This decision of the local court was upheld by the 10th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation following appellate review. In its decision, the Court of Cassation emphasized that it is not mandatory for a work accident to occur solely at the workplace or by means of a vehicle allocated by the employer; rather, the essential issue is whether the accident occurred within the scope of the employer’s authority, knowledge, and the requirements of the work. In this context, the fact that the employee traveled using his private vehicle did not constitute an obstacle to characterizing the incident as a work accident. In the assessment of the 10th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, factors such as the meeting being organized by the employer, the employee’s participation in the meeting being within the scope of the employment relationship, the journey being carried out with the employer’s knowledge, and the employee’s obligation to perform work indirectly continuing during this journey were deemed determinative. When these elements are present together, it was stated that the location of the accident and the nature of the vehicle used are of secondary importance. This decision is precedent-setting in that it demonstrates that traffic accidents suffered by employees who attend meetings, training sessions, seminars, or similar work-related organizations with their private vehicles in line with the employer’s knowledge and instruction, during their travel to and from such events, may also be considered within the scope of work accidents. Thus, the Court of Cassation addressed the concept of a work accident not through a narrow and formalistic approach, but within the factual and functional context of the employment relationship.
- Conclusion
The aforementioned precedents largely eliminate uncertainties frequently encountered in practice regarding “under which circumstances accidents occurring outside working hours may be classified as work accidents,” and reveal that the concept of a work accident should be evaluated not solely based on time and place, but within the framework of the nature of the employment relationship, the employer’s organizational authority, and directive power. In this context, the Court of Cassation has clearly established that, in activities carried out within the scope of the employer’s knowledge, instruction, or organization, the employee’s actual performance of work is deemed to continue, and the fact that the accident occurred outside working hours or outside the workplace does not, in itself, prevent it from being considered a work accident. Therefore, these precedents emphasize that, in determining employer liability, actual control and the causal link established with the work should be taken as the basis rather than formal criteria; they contribute to defining the boundaries of employers’ areas of responsibility more clearly in practice and serve as an important guide for employers in ensuring predictability and legal certainty in employment relationships.
Legal Intern Begüm Doğan