The international tobacco company will pay 500,000 lira in compensation to the family of the person who died from smoking.

The Ankara Regional Court of Appeals ruled that the daughter of a person who died from chronic lung disease after using cigarettes produced by an international tobacco company for many years should be paid 500,000 lira in moral compensation.

According to the case file, lawyer Senem Ülküm Yılmazel's father, Adnan Yılmazel, passed away in 2017 due to "COPD" (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease).

Yılmazel filed a lawsuit against an international tobacco company at the Ankara 11th Consumer Court, claiming that her father had used the same brand of cigarettes for over 50 years, could not break free from addiction due to nicotine and similar substances in the cigarettes, and died as a result of the effects of smoking. After the first-instance court ruled that the tobacco company should pay the plaintiff 10,000 lira in moral compensation, the parties brought the case to the Ankara Regional Court of Appeals, 3rd Civil Chamber.

LOST HIS FATHER DUE TO COPD

In its decision, the chamber reminded that the plaintiff's father, who used the relevant brand of cigarettes, was addicted due to the effects of tobacco and other chemicals added to cigarettes, and that the plaintiff's relative, who had been using them for many years, passed away from COPD.

INTERNATIONAL DECISIONS AFFECT TURKISH LAW

The decision cited examples from cases seen in the U.S. Supreme Court, stating that although these cases are not binding in terms of Turkish law, it is not possible to ignore the facts that are objectively determined and proven by the rules of medicine and science in Turkish judicial practice.

The decision pointed out that it was established through witness statements and evidence in the file that the plaintiff's father had smoked for over 50 years, emphasizing that according to the Law No. 6502 on the Protection of Consumers, manufacturers are obliged to produce safe products that meet minimum safety conditions for human health.

The decision reminded that in the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098, there is a provision stating, "The judge may decide that a suitable amount of money is to be paid as moral compensation to the injured party in the event of bodily harm, taking into account the characteristics of the incident. In cases of severe bodily harm or death, a suitable amount of money may also be decided to be paid as moral compensation to the relatives of the injured or deceased."

DETECTION OF DEFECTIVE PRODUCT

In this context, the evaluation stated that the death of the plaintiff's father occurred due to a product produced by the defendant company that could be considered defective, and there was no reason to conclude that the damage was not physical. The decision stated, "The defendant's behavior has been repeated with indifference to the health of the plaintiff's father for a long time since the date it started production in Turkey. It is also clear that nicotine is an addictive substance that makes smokers highly vulnerable to rationalizing their harmful behaviors, and due to the addictive effect, the plaintiff's father was physically, psychologically, and ultimately economically vulnerable."

"KNOWING IT WAS DANGEROUS."

The decision noted that the defendant company continued to produce cigarettes knowing they were dangerous, making the product appealing to consumers by adding chemicals that cause addiction and disease. It was stated that "Even when considering that the defendant advertised light cigarettes as being less harmful, the marketing of a defective product, knowing that thousands of people would die due to their addictions, is evidence of the negligent disregard for human life."

DIRECT INTERFERENCE WITH HUMAN RIGHTS

The decision stated that the defendant company had informative signs and explanations regarding the harms of the product on the product packages, that the defendant produced and sold in accordance with the current technical regulations, and that the plaintiff's father continued to smoke for many years knowing all the risks, thus making a defense of irresponsibility.

"THEY MARKETED KNOWING THEY WOULD DIE"

However, it was stated that the defendant's behavior had been repeated with indifference to the health of the plaintiff's father for a long time since the date it started production in Turkey, and it continued: "Nicotine is an addictive substance that makes smokers highly vulnerable to rationalizing their harmful behaviors, and due to the addictive effect, the plaintiff's father was physically and psychologically vulnerable. Considering that the defendant marketed its defective product, knowing that thousands of people would die due to their addictions, through appealing flavors and smooth smokes, and that the danger to human life was negligently ignored, it is clear that the plaintiff's father's choice to continue smoking does not eliminate the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's actions. In other words, considering the degree of defect of the product produced by the tobacco industry and specifically the defendant company in this case, the number of people threatened due to this defect, and the extent of the economic advantage/profitability that this puts the lives of these people at risk, it can be considered as a discretionary reason in determining the monetary amount of the defendant's compensation liability, but it cannot be seen as a factor that completely prevents compensation. Moreover, thinking that the fundamental human right to life, which is inalienable and non-transferable, can be violated solely on the grounds of the existence of the individual's consent is contrary to both Article 17/1 of our Constitution and Article 2 of the ECHR.

According to the article, it is not possible to exempt the manufacturer from liability for the purchase or continued purchase of a defective product and service that is certain to cause death. It was stated in the decision that "Due to the addictive effect of the cigarettes and tobacco products produced and sold by the defendant, individuals, including the plaintiff's father, are, in a sense, internally compelled to use cigarettes, and it cannot be said that there is a completely independent will and choice. Considering that the addiction causing this internal compulsion was known to the defendant, yet production and supply continued with indifference over the years, it would not be just or fair to say that the actions of the plaintiff's father completely exempted the defendant from liability for damages."

THE AMOUNT OF MORAL COMPENSATION HAS BEEN INCREASED

In the decision, it was emphasized that the company's production and sale of a product it knew to be defective to the extent of causing death constitutes a direct intervention in the right to life, which is protected unconditionally by national and supranational legislation, and it was stated that the defendant's fault must be acknowledged. The court noted that the amount of moral compensation determined for the plaintiff by the first-instance court was low and ruled that the tobacco company should pay the plaintiff 500,000 lira in moral compensation.