276 / 522
solidarity instances, as well –since absolute/partial solidarity
differentiation is abolished–.
• The TCO is ambiguous as to whether or not the responsible per-
sons may rely on the reduction of the compensation clauses.
However, it should be noted that, the draft TCO stipulated that
the limit of responsibility for each of the liable persons was the
compensation amount that they shall be obliged to pay, given
that they were the only responsible. In other words, the provi-
sion in the draft TCO allowed them to rely on the reduction of
compensation grounds for themselves. This provision was later
removed from the draft, and the possibility that they may rely
on reduction grounds for themselves became controversial.
The below-mentioned regulations are introduced concerning the
liability of more than one person, apart from those which relate to the
consequences of absolute/partial solidarity division:
• The differentiation relating to the tasks of the collective wrong-
doers is abolished, and the responsibility of those who aided
and abetted is regulated in parallel with the others.
• The hierarchical structure of the right to recourse concerning
the liability of more than one person from the same damage is
abrogated. It is accepted that the judge shall take into account
all circumstances and conditions, in particular, the negligence
of each of the liable persons, and the severity of the damages
suffered while deciding on the distribution of liability.
Conclusion
Turkish Code of Obligations numbered 6098 introduced a brand
new regime significantly different from the one accepted by the abro-
gated Code of Obligations numbered 818 concerning the liability of
more than one person from the same damage, the most important of
which being the abolishment of the absolute/partial solidarity division.
260
NEWSLETTER 2015