Türkiye Barolar Birliği Dergisi 140.Sayı
225 TBB Dergisi 2019 (140) İbrahim GÜL dayandırılmakta iken 01.01.2002’de yürürlüğe giren BGB reformuyla zararın birliği ilkesinin yasal bir dayanak kazandığı ifade edilmekte- dir. 12 Ancak zararın birliğinin kabulüne ilişkin BGB’de açık bir hüküm halen bulunmamaktadır. ABD hukukunda ise “ equity” in bir uygula- ması (the equitable principle) 13 olarak, mağdurun müşterek sorumlu- lardan birinden zararını tazmin etmesinden sonra diğerlerinden de zararını tazmin etmesine engel olmak amacıyla gelişen zararın birliği ilkesinin, belirleyebildiğimiz kadarıyla genel bir yasal 14 dayanağı bu- lunmamaktadır. 15 gen 1983, Sayı:4, s.121-125, s.122. 12 MüKoBGB/Helmut Grothe, Münchener Kommentar zum BGB, 7. Bası, Münih 2015, BGB § 199 Rn. 9; BGH Urteil v. 8.11.2016, NZG 2017, s.753, s.756. 13 Benton T. Wheatley/TracyMcCreight, “Joint and Several Contractual Liability and Settlement Credits: A Look At The “One Satisfaction Rule” In Texas”, s.1-39, s.2; bkz. https://www.munsch.com/portalresource/lookup/wosid/cp-base-43304/ overrideFile.name=/wheatley_2017_ 01-27_one_satisfaction_paper.pdf (erişim tarihi: 31.03.2018); Uthe Tech. Corp. v. Aetrium, Inc. 808 F.3d 755 (2015) (9th Cir- cuit), s.760; bkz. https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20151211104 (erişim ta- rihi: 31.03.2018). Ayrıca bkz. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321 (1971); Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Co., 377 U. S. 476, 377 U. S. 501 (1964); McKenna v. Austin, 77 U.S.App.D.C. 228, 134 F.2d 659 (1943); Vine Street, LLC v. Keeling ex rel. Estate of Keeling, 460 F. Supp.2d 728; Tompkins v. Cyr, 202 F.3d 770, 53 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1424, 46 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 319 (5th Cir. 2000); 17 U.S. Code § 504; Restatement, Torts § 885(3) (1939). 14 Bununla birlikte ABD Telif Yasası’nın [Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1)] tek tazmin ilkesini benimsediği değerlendirilmektedir; bkz. Dan Booth, “The One Sa- tisfaction Rule: A New Approach to Curbing Copyright Trolls”, Landslide (ABA Publication), Chicago 2015, C.7, Sa.3, s.22-28, s.26. 15 ABD hukukunda zararın birliği ilkesi genellikle “one satisfaction rule” olarak ifa- de edilmekle birlikte, “single recovery rule” veya “lump sum award” olarak da ifade edilmektedir. ABD hukukunda zararın birliği ilkesi için bkz. Kenneth S. Ab- raham, The Forms and Functions of Tort Law, 5.Bası, Foundation Press, New York 2017, s.242; Edward J. Kionka, Torts in a Nutshell, 3.Bası, West Group, ABD 1999, s.346; Dan B. Dobbs, Law of Remedies, 2.Bası, West Publishing Co., ABD 1993, s.3, s.647; James M. Fischer, Understanding Remedies, Matthew Bender & Co, ABD 1999, s.51. “One-satisfaction rule: the principle that a plaintiff is entitled to only one recovery for a particular harm, and the plaintiff must elect a single remedy if the jury has awarded more than one.”; Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th Edition, s.1122. “Double recovery for the same items amounts to overcompensation and is prohi- bited. Plaintiff may plead and prove multiple causes of action, though he or she may obtain only one recovery for his or her injury.In other words, regardless of the nature and number of legal theories advanced by plaintiff, plaintiff may not receive more than a single recovery for each distinct item of compensable damage supported by the evidence.”; bkz. Corpus Juris Secundum Damages, § 22. Ayrıca bkz. F.D.I.C. v. First Heights Bank, FSB, 229 F.3d 528, 2000 FED App. 364P (6th Cir. 2000); Szalla v. Locke, 421 Mass. 448, 657 N.E.2d 1267 (1995); Waite Hill Services, Inc. v. World Class Metal Works, Inc., 959 S.W.2d 182 (Tex. 1998); Dowd & Dowd,
Made with FlippingBook
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTQ3OTE1