Construction Site Accidents in Turkey: Employer, Contractor and Subcontractor Liability

Construction sites are among the workplaces where the consequences of inadequate occupational safety can be immediate and severe. Falls from height, collapsing scaffolding, crane accidents, electrical contact, excavation failures, falling materials, defective machinery and failures in temporary structures can result in serious injury or death within seconds.

When such an accident occurs in Turkey, however, determining who is legally responsible may be significantly more complicated than identifying the company that issued the injured worker’s payslip.

A major construction project may simultaneously involve:

• the property owner or project employer,
• a main contractor,
• several subcontractors,
• specialist subcontractors,
• project managers,
• site managers,
• occupational safety specialists,
• engineers,
• equipment operators,
• and hundreds of workers employed through different companies.

Turkish law therefore does not determine liability solely by asking:

“Who directly employed the injured worker?”

Depending on the contractual structure and the actual organization of the construction site, responsibility may extend to the worker’s direct employer, the principal employer, contractors, subcontractors and individual managers or professionals whose duties contributed to the accident.

The principal legal framework includes Law No. 6331 on Occupational Health and Safety, Law No. 5510 on Social Insurance and General Health Insurance, the Turkish Code of Obligations, the Labour Law, the Regulation on Occupational Health and Safety in Construction Works, and the Turkish Criminal Code.

Understanding how these rules interact is essential for developers, employers, contractors, subcontractors, project managers and workers involved in Turkish construction projects.

What Is Considered a Work Accident in Turkey?

Under Article 13 of Law No. 5510, the concept of a work accident is broader than an accident occurring while an employee is actively carrying out a construction task.

The Social Security Institution (“SGK”) explains that an accident can qualify where it occurs, among other circumstances, while the insured person is present at the workplace, because of work being carried out by the employer, during an employment-related assignment outside the workplace, or during transport provided by the employer.

Accordingly, a worker does not necessarily have to be operating machinery or physically constructing part of a building at the precise moment of the accident.

For example, accidents occurring:

• while walking through the construction site,
• during loading operations,
• while using employer-provided transportation,
• during site-related assignments,
• or while performing work outside the main site at the employer’s direction

may potentially fall within the statutory definition.

For construction companies, this means that occupational accident exposure is not limited to the immediate workface.

The Employer’s Fundamental Duty: Prevention Comes First

Law No. 6331 establishes the central occupational health and safety obligations of employers.

The employer must organize occupational health and safety measures, assess risks, provide necessary equipment and resources, monitor compliance and adapt preventive measures where circumstances change. Official Ministry guidance emphasizes that employers remain responsible for their occupational health and safety obligations even when they appoint occupational safety professionals or purchase services from an external occupational health and safety unit.

This principle is extremely important.

An employer cannot normally avoid responsibility simply by saying:

“We hired an occupational safety specialist, so safety was no longer our responsibility.”

Appointment of an occupational safety specialist assists the employer in performing the statutory system.

It does not transfer the employer’s entire legal responsibility to that specialist.

The same applies to outsourcing occupational health and safety services.

Article 417 of the Turkish Code of Obligations Creates a Separate Employer Obligation

The occupational safety duty is also supported by private law.

Article 417 of the Turkish Code of Obligations requires the employer to protect the worker’s personality and to take all measures reasonably necessary to ensure occupational health and safety, while the worker must comply with those measures.

This provision becomes particularly important in compensation litigation following serious injury or death.

The employer’s liability is therefore not based merely on an administrative failure to comply with safety legislation.

Failure to provide a safe workplace can also constitute a breach of the employer’s contractual obligations toward the employee.

Construction Sites Are Subject to Special Safety Rules

Construction is not treated like an ordinary office workplace.

The Regulation on Occupational Health and Safety in Construction Works introduces construction-specific rules dealing with the risks created by temporary and changing workplaces.

The Ministry of Labour and Social Security identifies this Regulation as the main sector-specific occupational safety framework applicable to construction activities.

The Regulation covers matters such as:

• construction-site organization,
• safe access,
• work at height,
• scaffolding,
• excavations,
• temporary structures,
• falling objects,
• movement of workers and equipment,
• emergency arrangements,
• coordination between different contractors,
• and preparation of health and safety documentation.

The legal analysis following an accident should therefore examine not only Law No. 6331 but also the detailed construction-specific obligations applicable to the precise activity during which the accident occurred.

Falls From Height: One of the Most Important Construction Risks

Work at height is particularly important in Turkish construction safety practice.

The Ministry’s construction-safety guidance emphasizes that work at height must be planned and organized in advance and that collective protection measures should generally be prioritized over individual protection systems.

This distinction can become decisive after an accident.

Consider a worker who falls from the sixth floor of a construction project.

The employer later argues:

“We gave the employee a safety harness.”

That may not end the inquiry.

Investigators and courts may examine:

• whether guardrails should have been installed,
• whether floor openings were properly protected,
• whether a safe working platform existed,
• whether a life-line system was properly designed,
• whether anchorage points were suitable,
• whether the worker was trained,
• whether safety equipment was actually supervised,
• and whether collective protection could have eliminated the risk before reliance was placed on personal protective equipment.

The central legal question is not simply whether safety equipment existed somewhere on the site.

It is whether the occupational risk was properly identified, prevented and controlled in practice.

Risk Assessment Is a Continuing Obligation

Construction sites change constantly.

One week, workers may be performing excavation works.

Several months later, structural work may be underway.

Later, façade contractors, electrical contractors, mechanical contractors and finishing teams may operate simultaneously.

For this reason, risk assessment cannot safely be treated as a document prepared once at the beginning of construction and then stored in an office.

Law No. 6331 requires employers to carry out or arrange occupational safety risk assessments, and Ministry guidance stresses that risk assessments must reflect the actual working environment and be updated when relevant changes occur.

In litigation, a generic risk assessment copied from another project may be far less persuasive than documentation showing that the specific hazard causing the accident had actually been identified and addressed.

Health and Safety Plans Are Particularly Important in Construction

The Construction Works Regulation also requires a Health and Safety Plan (“Sağlık ve Güvenlik Planı”) within the applicable construction framework.

According to the Ministry of Labour’s official construction guidance, the employer responsible for the entire construction site or the project responsible person must prepare or ensure preparation of the plan. The plan is intended to address occupational safety coordination from the preparation stage through implementation of the project.

The plan becomes particularly important where many companies work simultaneously.

For example:

A façade subcontractor may create risks for employees of the electrical subcontractor working below.

A tower-crane operation performed by one contractor may expose several other contractors’ workers.

An excavation subcontractor may alter access routes being used by all workers.

Occupational safety therefore cannot always be divided into isolated company-by-company compartments.

Multiple Contractors Mean a Coordination Duty

Large construction sites frequently involve several employers operating within the same physical area.

The Construction Works Regulation contains specific coordination requirements where more than one employer operates at the same construction site. Ministry guidance specifically identifies the obligation to establish occupational health and safety coordination in such circumstances.

This has important consequences for accident liability.

Imagine:

• Contractor A operates the tower crane.
• Subcontractor B employs the injured worker.
• Contractor C has placed materials within the crane’s lifting zone.
• The main contractor controls overall site traffic.
• The accident occurs because the lifting area was not isolated.

The fact that the injured worker was employed by Subcontractor B does not necessarily mean that only B can be responsible.

The court may need to examine the duties and fault of every actor involved in creating, managing or failing to control the hazardous situation.

Main Contractor and Subcontractor: Who Is the Employer?

Construction contracts often create confusion because commercial terminology and employment-law terminology do not always overlap perfectly.

A property developer may describe itself contractually as the “Employer.”

A construction company may be the “Main Contractor.”

A specialist company may be called a “Subcontractor.”

Employment and social-security law, however, apply their own definitions.

Under the principal employer–subcontractor structure recognized under Turkish law, an entity taking part of the work from another employer and employing its own insured workers can constitute an alt işveren, while the party satisfying the legal conditions above it may constitute the asıl işveren.

SGK’s official guidance emphasizes that whether such a relationship exists depends on substantive conditions, including the existence of a principal employer employing workers, the subcontractor employing workers for the contracted work and performance of that work within the relevant workplace organization.

Therefore:

The contractual label is not necessarily decisive.

A contract stating that a company is an “independent contractor” does not automatically prevent a court from examining whether the statutory requirements of an asıl işveren–alt işveren relationship exist.

Joint Liability of the Principal Employer and Subcontractor

One of the most important rules for construction projects concerns joint responsibility.

Article 2/6 of the Labour Law establishes that, where a legally recognized principal employer–subcontractor relationship exists, the principal employer is jointly responsible with the subcontractor for specified obligations toward subcontractor employees arising from the Labour Law, employment contracts and applicable collective agreements. Court of Cassation decisions continue to apply this statutory framework.

Law No. 5510 contains a parallel social-security principle.

SGK explains that the principal employer is responsible together with the subcontractor for obligations imposed on employers under Law No. 5510.

This is why the statement:

“He was not our employee; he worked for the subcontractor.”

is frequently insufficient as a complete legal defence.

Where the statutory principal employer–subcontractor relationship exists, the upper-tier employer may face substantial exposure.

Court of Cassation case law expressly recognizes that an injured subcontractor employee—or the worker’s beneficiaries in the event of death—may pursue compensation against parties regarded as jointly responsible within the principal employer–subcontractor structure.

But Every Project Owner Is Not Automatically a Principal Employer

This distinction is essential.

A person or company that owns land and hires an independent contractor to construct a building does not automatically become an asıl işveren merely because it owns the project.

Whether principal-employer status exists depends on the legal and factual structure of the relationship.

For example, if a landowner that does not itself carry out construction operations awards the entire construction work to an independent contractor, the legal assessment may differ from a large construction company that performs part of the works with its own employees while subcontracting another part.

This is why liability analysis must distinguish between:

project ownership,

contractual employer status,

statutory employer status,

and principal employer status.

Using the English word “employer” without making this distinction can be particularly misleading in international construction contracts.

The Direct Employer Remains Responsible for Its Own Workers

A subcontractor that employs workers does not eliminate its own responsibilities by saying that the main contractor controls the overall project.

Each employer must fulfill occupational health and safety obligations toward its workers within the area of responsibility assigned to it.

A subcontractor may therefore be responsible for matters such as:

• employee safety training,
• risk assessment,
• personal protective equipment,
• health surveillance,
• safe work procedures,
• supervision,
• competency of equipment operators,
• implementation of site instructions,
• and compliance with project safety procedures.

If a subcontractor sends an inadequately trained worker to perform dangerous work, its own liability may remain significant even if the main contractor also failed in coordination or supervision.

The legal system can allocate responsibility to more than one party simultaneously.

Outsourcing a Dangerous Task Does Not Automatically Outsource All Risk

This is one of the most commercially important principles for main contractors.

A main contractor may subcontract:

• scaffolding,
• excavation,
• crane operation,
• façade installation,
• electrical works,
• demolition,
• formwork,
• or mechanical installation

to a specialist company.

Specialization may be commercially and technically sensible.

But subcontracting the work does not necessarily mean that the main contractor becomes legally irrelevant to safety.

If the main contractor retains overall control of:

• access,
• site coordination,
• lifting zones,
• shared scaffolding,
• site traffic,
• common safety infrastructure,
• or interaction between contractors,

its own failures may contribute to an accident independently of the subcontractor’s fault.

The allocation of contractual scope is therefore only the beginning of the analysis.

The court will also examine what happened in practice.

Occupational Safety Specialists Can Also Face Responsibility

Construction companies sometimes attempt to place all responsibility on the occupational safety specialist after an accident.

That approach is legally oversimplified.

The employer retains its statutory occupational safety obligations even when a qualified specialist has been appointed.

At the same time, this does not mean that occupational safety professionals can never be personally responsible.

Their own professional duties, warnings, recommendations, inspections and conduct may be examined separately.

The Ministry specifically notes that occupational safety professionals have statutory duties and that serious negligence established through judicial proceedings can create professional consequences.

In criminal proceedings, the decisive issue is generally not the person’s job title alone.

The investigation must determine:

What duty did the individual have?

What hazard should that individual have identified?

Did the individual have authority or responsibility to intervene?

What did the individual actually do?

Did the omission contribute causally to the accident?

Site Managers and Engineers May Also Be Investigated

In serious construction accidents, criminal investigations commonly extend beyond the corporate employer.

Potential defendants may include individuals such as:

• company managers,
• site managers,
• site chiefs,
• project managers,
• engineers,
• occupational safety professionals,
• supervisors,
• equipment operators,
• and others with actual responsibility for the operation that caused the accident.

This reflects a fundamental criminal-law principle:

criminal liability is personal.

A court must identify the duty, negligence and causal contribution of each individual rather than merely convicting a person because of their senior title.

This becomes especially important in large corporate structures where a board member in another city may have no operational involvement, while a site-level manager may exercise direct control over the hazardous operation.

Criminal Liability After a Fatal Construction Accident

Where a safety failure causes death, criminal proceedings may arise under Article 85 of the Turkish Criminal Code concerning negligent homicide (“taksirle öldürme”). The current statutory provision criminalizes causing another person’s death through negligence and provides aggravated treatment where the act causes multiple deaths or death together with injury to others.

Where the accident causes injury rather than death, Article 89 concerning negligent injury (“taksirle yaralama”) may apply depending on the circumstances.

A criminal investigation may therefore focus on whether relevant individuals:

• failed to install legally required protection,
• permitted unsafe work,
• ignored an obvious hazard,
• failed to stop dangerous operations,
• used defective equipment,
• failed to supervise,
• knowingly allowed unqualified workers to perform dangerous tasks,
• or otherwise breached a duty of care that contributed to the result.

The existence of an occupational safety violation does not itself automatically determine the criminal conviction.

Causation and individual negligence must also be established.

Administrative Liability Is Separate From Criminal Liability

A construction accident may trigger several legal processes simultaneously.

The Ministry of Labour may investigate occupational safety compliance.

SGK may investigate whether the event qualifies as a work accident.

The public prosecutor may investigate potential criminal offences.

The injured worker may bring a civil compensation claim.

SGK may later pursue recourse against responsible persons.

These proceedings are legally related but not identical.

Therefore:

an administrative fine does not automatically determine civil fault,

and

payment of SGK benefits does not automatically eliminate the worker’s compensation rights.

Each legal regime must be assessed separately.

Reporting the Accident to SGK

For employees insured under Article 4/1(a) of Law No. 5510, employers are required to report work accidents to law-enforcement authorities immediately and to SGK within three working days following the accident, according to SGK’s current official guidance.

Failure to comply with the SGK reporting period can create financial consequences and administrative penalties.

SGK explains that, where a 4/a employee’s work accident is not reported within the statutory period, temporary incapacity benefits paid up to the notification date can be recovered from the employer, in addition to applicable administrative sanctions.

This reporting obligation should therefore form part of every contractor’s emergency incident protocol.

SGK Benefits Do Not Replace the Employer’s Compensation Liability

An injured insured worker may receive social-security benefits arising from the work accident.

Depending on the circumstances, these can include:

• temporary incapacity allowance,
• permanent incapacity income,
• death income for eligible beneficiaries,
• funeral benefits,
• and other statutory entitlements.

SGK’s current guidance identifies these as principal benefits available under work-accident insurance.

However, social security does not necessarily cover the entirety of the worker’s private-law loss.

Where legal liability exists, the worker may also pursue additional compensation against responsible parties.

What Compensation Can an Injured Worker Claim?

The Turkish Code of Obligations recognizes compensation for losses resulting from bodily injury.

Depending on the facts, recoverable claims may potentially include:

• treatment expenses not otherwise covered,
• loss of earnings,
• loss resulting from reduced or lost working capacity,
• economic losses arising from impairment of future earning capacity,
• and additional expenses caused by the injury.

Non-pecuniary compensation may also be awarded under the conditions of Turkish law for the physical and psychological consequences of serious injury.

The precise calculation normally requires medical evidence, determination of permanent disability where applicable, income evidence, fault assessment and actuarial calculations.

Construction accident litigation is therefore rarely resolved solely on the basis of photographs of the accident scene.

Fatal Accidents Create Claims for the Worker’s Family

Where a construction accident results in death, the consequences extend beyond the deceased worker.

Persons who satisfy the applicable legal conditions may pursue claims such as:

• funeral expenses,
• losses arising before death where applicable,
• loss of financial support (“destekten yoksun kalma tazminatı”),
• and non-pecuniary damages.

The amount depends heavily on the deceased worker’s:

• age,
• income,
• expected working life,
• family relationships,
• level of financial support,
• and the fault distribution in the accident.

These cases frequently involve substantial actuarial evidence.

The Worker Can Also Be Assigned Fault

Occupational safety law protects workers, but this does not mean that employee conduct is legally irrelevant.

Workers also have duties to comply with occupational safety instructions and use equipment appropriately.

For example, an employee may:

• deliberately remove a guard,
• refuse to use required safety equipment,
• enter a prohibited zone,
• operate equipment without authority,
• or disregard clear safety instructions.

If such conduct causally contributes to the accident, the worker may be assigned a percentage of fault.

A Court of Cassation work-accident decision, for example, records a fault assessment allocating responsibility between employers and the injured employee, illustrating that comparative fault can form part of the compensation analysis.

However, employers should be cautious about relying too heavily on the argument:

“The worker was careless.”

The safety system is designed precisely because foreseeable human error must often be controlled through engineering measures, supervision and safe organization.

Signing a Safety Form Does Not Automatically Remove Employer Liability

Construction companies frequently preserve documents showing that workers:

• received safety training,
• received helmets,
• received safety harnesses,
• signed toolbox-talk forms,
• or acknowledged safety rules.

These documents can be important evidence.

But paperwork is not equivalent to actual compliance.

A signed form will not necessarily protect an employer where, for example:

• there was no guardrail,
• scaffolding was structurally unsafe,
• the worker had nowhere to connect a harness,
• machinery lacked protective systems,
• or supervisors routinely permitted workers to ignore safety procedures.

Courts therefore examine both:

documentary safety compliance

and

the actual conditions on site.

SGK May Bring a Recourse Claim Against the Employer

One of the most significant financial consequences of a serious accident may arise later through SGK.

Article 21 of Law No. 5510 regulates SGK’s recourse rights where a work accident or occupational disease results from the employer’s intentional conduct or conduct contrary to occupational health and safety legislation.

In such circumstances, SGK may seek recovery of specified social-security expenditures from legally responsible parties within the statutory framework.

The financial exposure arising from a serious accident may therefore include not only:

compensation payable directly to the injured worker,

but also

amounts later claimed by SGK.

This is an important risk in major construction projects.

Third Parties May Also Face SGK Recourse

Article 21 of Law No. 5510 also addresses work accidents caused by the fault of third persons.

Court of Cassation materials applying the provision confirm the statutory possibility of recourse where a third person’s fault contributes to the work accident.

This can be relevant in construction where, for example:

• a crane company,
• equipment supplier,
• transport company,
• subcontractor,
• or another project participant

causes or contributes to the accident.

The social-security analysis therefore does not necessarily end with the worker’s direct employer.

Contractual Indemnity Between Contractor and Subcontractor

Construction agreements commonly contain clauses stating that a subcontractor is entirely responsible for accidents involving its workers and must indemnify the main contractor against all resulting claims.

Such clauses can be commercially important in the internal relationship between contractor and subcontractor.

But they should not automatically be assumed to eliminate statutory rights of:

• the injured worker,
• the worker’s family,
• or SGK.

If Turkish law makes two parties responsible toward the injured person, an internal contractual clause allocating the loss to one party may regulate subsequent recourse between those companies without necessarily preventing the injured worker from pursuing a legally responsible party.

The distinction is:

external liability toward the injured worker

versus

internal allocation of the financial burden between contractors.

Construction contracts should address both.

Liability Insurance Is Important but Does Not Replace Safety Compliance

Major construction projects frequently carry various insurance arrangements, including employer liability, third-party liability and construction all-risk coverage.

Insurance may reduce the ultimate financial impact of an accident.

However, insurance should not be confused with legal immunity.

Coverage may be affected by:

• policy limits,
• deductibles,
• exclusions,
• insured-party definitions,
• subcontractor provisions,
• notification obligations,
• and the nature of the accident.

A contractor should therefore immediately notify the relevant insurer or broker after a serious incident while simultaneously preserving its legal position.

Evidence Is Created in the First Hours After the Accident

Serious construction accident cases can continue for years.

But some of the most important evidence exists only for a few hours.

Relevant evidence may include:

• CCTV footage,
• photographs,
• equipment condition,
• scaffold configuration,
• worker positioning,
• weather conditions,
• safety barriers,
• lifting plans,
• site access records,
• toolbox meeting records,
• training certificates,
• risk assessments,
• inspection records,
• maintenance documents,
• equipment certificates,
• subcontract agreements,
• site diaries,
• health and safety plans,
• occupational safety specialist records,
• witness statements,
• and digital communications.

The accident scene may be altered quickly because construction must continue or emergency measures must be implemented.

Evidence preservation should therefore begin immediately.

Do Not “Fix” the Site Before Properly Documenting the Accident

There is an obvious tension following a serious accident.

A dangerous condition may need immediate correction to prevent another injury.

At the same time, removing the dangerous condition may destroy evidence of why the first accident occurred.

For example, after a worker falls because of an allegedly defective scaffold, the contractor may immediately dismantle the scaffold.

Months later, experts may be asked whether:

• guardrails existed,
• anchorage was adequate,
• access was safe,
• components were properly installed,
• or the platform complied with applicable requirements.

If the original scaffold no longer exists and no adequate photographs or technical records were preserved, establishing the facts becomes substantially harder.

Urgent hazards must obviously be controlled, but accident-scene documentation should occur wherever practically possible before evidence disappears.

A Practical Example: Subcontractor Worker Falls From an Unprotected Floor Edge

Consider the following scenario.

A developer appoints a general contractor to construct a residential complex.

The general contractor appoints a façade subcontractor.

The façade subcontractor employs Worker A.

Worker A is instructed to work on the seventh floor.

The building edge has no collective guardrail because it was temporarily removed by another subcontractor.

A life-line system has not yet been installed.

Worker A falls and suffers permanent disability.

Who is liable?

The answer cannot be determined merely from the fact that Worker A’s salary was paid by the façade subcontractor.

The investigation may need to determine:

The Subcontractor

Did it send Worker A into an obviously unsafe area?

Was he trained?

Was appropriate protective equipment provided?

Was the work supervised?

Should the subcontractor have refused to commence the operation?

The Main Contractor

Who controlled common safety infrastructure?

Who was responsible for floor-edge protection?

Did the main contractor coordinate the different subcontractors?

Did it know that the guardrail had been removed?

Was access to the hazardous area controlled?

The Other Subcontractor

Did another contractor remove the guardrail?

Why was it removed?

Was the area handed back safely afterward?

The Worker

Did Worker A disregard any specific safety instruction?

Was appropriate equipment available but intentionally not used?

Site Management

Were inspections performed?

Had the hazard previously been identified?

Were warnings issued and ignored?

The court may ultimately assign different fault percentages to several participants.

This is why construction accident liability is fundamentally an organizational and causation analysis, not merely an employment-record analysis.

Another Example: Crane Accident Involving Several Companies

Suppose a tower crane operated by Company A drops material onto a worker employed by Subcontractor B.

The main contractor manages all lifting operations through a site logistics plan.

Investigation reveals:

• the crane operator was properly licensed,
• but the lifting area had not been isolated,
• workers were allowed to walk under suspended loads,
• the main contractor had no effective lifting coordination system,
• and Subcontractor B had also instructed its workers to use the unsafe route.

Potential liability may therefore extend across several companies.

This demonstrates why safety obligations in construction are often overlapping rather than exclusive.

What Should Companies Do Immediately After a Serious Accident?

A properly organized accident-response procedure should generally address several matters simultaneously.

First, emergency medical intervention and elimination of continuing danger must take priority.

The scene should then be properly documented without obstructing official investigations.

The employer must satisfy the applicable accident-reporting requirements, including the SGK three-working-day reporting rule for 4/a employees and immediate law-enforcement notification.

Relevant documents should be secured, including:

• training documents,
• risk assessments,
• safety plans,
• equipment records,
• subcontractor agreements,
• CCTV footage,
• photographs,
• site instructions,
• and occupational safety records.

The company should also notify relevant insurers and obtain legal advice before employees give inconsistent or speculative explanations regarding the accident.

The purpose should not be to conceal the incident.

It should be to ensure that the facts are preserved accurately.

Contractor Due Diligence Should Begin Before the Accident

Construction accident risk is easier to manage before workers enter the site.

A main contractor appointing a subcontractor should therefore examine matters such as:

• occupational safety capability,
• qualified personnel,
• previous safety performance,
• equipment certification,
• insurance,
• employee qualifications,
• training systems,
• risk-assessment procedures,
• and emergency arrangements.

But documentary due diligence alone is not enough.

If a subcontractor produces perfect documents during procurement but repeatedly operates unsafely on site, the main contractor must respond to what is actually occurring.

The Construction Contract Should Clearly Allocate Safety Responsibilities

A well-drafted construction or subcontract agreement should address:

• compliance with Turkish occupational safety legislation,
• preparation and updating of risk assessments,
• site-specific safety plans,
• provision of personal protective equipment,
• common-area safety,
• scaffolding responsibility,
• lifting operations,
• equipment inspections,
• worker training,
• accident notification,
• investigation cooperation,
• insurance,
• indemnity,
• audit rights,
• authority to stop unsafe work,
• removal of unsafe personnel,
• and consequences of repeated safety violations.

However, contractual allocation should complement the statutory system—not be used to assume that mandatory legal responsibility can simply be contracted away.

Stop-Work Authority Is a Critical Management Tool

A safety system that identifies violations but allows work to continue is inherently weak.

Main contractors should establish clear authority for appropriate personnel to stop dangerous operations.

Consider the difference between:

System A:
The occupational safety specialist sends an e-mail reporting missing guardrails. Construction continues for three weeks.

System B:
The hazard is identified, the affected area is isolated immediately and work cannot resume until the responsible manager verifies corrective measures.

From both a safety and litigation perspective, the second system provides much stronger evidence of active prevention.

Senior Management Should Not Treat Occupational Safety as a Documentation Exercise

After a serious accident, investigators often examine the organizational culture surrounding safety.

Questions may include:

• Were previous violations repeatedly ignored?
• Were production deadlines prioritized over safety?
• Did managers pressure teams to continue during hazardous conditions?
• Were safety specialists’ written recommendations implemented?
• Were subcontractors sanctioned for repeated breaches?
• Was adequate safety budget provided?
• Were inspections genuine or merely signatures on forms?

Law No. 6331’s preventive approach requires employers to organize and monitor safety, not simply create a file containing certificates.

Conclusion: Construction Accident Liability Follows Control, Duty, Fault and Causation—not Merely the Payroll

A construction site accident in Turkey can simultaneously create:

occupational health and safety liability,

civil compensation liability,

social-security liability,

administrative sanctions,

and potentially criminal liability.

The injured worker’s direct employer is an obvious starting point, but it is not necessarily the end of the analysis.

Where the statutory conditions for a principal employer–subcontractor relationship exist, Turkish law can impose joint responsibility on the principal employer together with the subcontractor.

The construction-specific regulatory framework also requires coordination where several employers operate within the same construction area and places importance on health and safety planning for the entire project.

At the same time, criminal liability remains personal. Where death or injury results from negligent safety failures, the conduct and duties of individual managers, supervisors, engineers, safety professionals and other responsible persons may be examined under the Turkish Criminal Code’s negligent homicide and negligent injury provisions.

The key questions following a serious construction accident are therefore:

Who employed the worker?

Who controlled the hazardous activity?

Who controlled the relevant part of the construction site?

Who was legally required to identify and eliminate the risk?

Who knew—or should have known—that the condition was dangerous?

Who had the authority to stop the work?

Which safety measure was missing?

Did that failure actually contribute to the injury or death?

For project owners and contractors, the safest risk-management principle is equally clear:

Do not rely on contractual labels to allocate safety responsibility.

A construction contract can allocate work.

It can allocate costs.

It can allocate indemnities.

But when a worker is seriously injured or killed, Turkish courts and authorities will ultimately examine who had the legal duty and practical ability to prevent the accident—and why that prevention failed.