91 Union of Turkish Bar Associations Review 2022 TÜZÜNER / DUYMUŞ / ALGÜL In 2004, the capacity to sue for damages against the obstetrician and his nurse was evaluated. The doctor did not supervise the nurse, the nurse did not follow the doctor’s instructions, the doctor left the plaintiff’s birth and went to another birth, the nurse tried to deliver the pregnant woman without waiting for the doctor, the nerves in the new-born’s arm were damaged, and as a result of the strong pressure on the pregnant woman’s abdomen, the baby’s arm was disabled. The Court of Cassation decided that the case should be accepted because it was based on the defendants’ personal wrong. So much so that just because personal fault is mentioned in the petition, the court should enter the merits of the case and a judgment should be made according to this determination after determining whether the defendants have personal wrongs.49 In 2004, the lawsuit was filed against the obstetrician and his nurse for causing the death of the mother and the baby. However, this time, since the lawsuit was not based on the personal wrongs of the civil servant defendants working in the public hospital, it is obvious that the administrative jurisdiction was directed.50 In 2005, it was mentioned that in the lawsuit of complete loss of sensation in the left foot following the pain that started after the injection, the provisions of the agency contract (mandatum) and the absolute liability of the employer could be applied.51 In 2005, new-borns were mixed-up by nurse error. Because the name bands of the babies of the plaintiff mother and another mother who gave birth in the same hospital were changed somehow. The mother, who stayed away from her own baby unknowingly breastfed someone else’s child until she learned the truth. The decision had to be reversed due to the amount of non-pecuniary compensation determined without investigating the social and economic conditions of the parties.52 In 2005, the fake prescription incident written by the nurse is interesting. Defendant nurse arranged forged prescriptions on behalf of 49 4th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 2004/11762, 2004/10881, 30.9.2004. 50 21st Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 2003/10347, 2004/765, 9.2.2004. 51 4th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 2005/5837, 2005/5679, 26.5.2005. 52 13th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 2004/15903, 2005/3133, 2.3.2005.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTQ3OTE1