The offence of negligent injury arises when a breach of a duty of care causes bodily harm or impairment of another person’s health. It is frequently discussed in traffic collisions, occupational accidents, sports and medical treatment. Injury alone does not establish criminal liability: the source of the duty, foreseeability, causation and the accused’s individual fault must each be examined.
What is negligent injury under Article 89?
Article 89 of the Turkish Criminal Code penalises a person who negligently causes bodily pain or impairment of health or perception. The protected interest is bodily integrity and health. Liability may arise from an act or from failure to perform a legally required precaution.
Elements of the offence
There must be a concrete duty of care arising from legislation, professional standards, contract or ordinary safety requirements. The breach must be capable of producing the injury, causation must be established, and the result must be objectively attributable to the prohibited risk created by the offender.
The result is not intended in negligence. Ordinary negligence involves failure to foresee a foreseeable result. Conscious negligence exists where the person foresees the risk but relies on the result not occurring. Intending or accepting the result may instead lead to an assessment of intentional injury.
Ordinary negligence, conscious negligence and probable intent
Conscious negligence
Under Article 22(3), the sentence determined for a consciously negligent offence is increased by one third to one half. The assessment concerns whether the accused actually perceived the risk and nevertheless relied on experience, precautions or chance.
Distinction from probable intent
The distinction cannot be based only on the severity of the outcome. The perceived magnitude of the risk, genuine preventive measures and the manner in which the conduct continued are relevant. Relying on the result not occurring points to conscious negligence; accepting the result may point to probable intent.
Penalties under Article 89
Basic form
The current penalty under Article 89(1) is imprisonment from four months to two years or a judicial fine. These are alternative sanctions. Law No. 7571 dated 24 December 2025 increased the former range of three months to one year. Sources still displaying the former range are therefore outdated.
Consequences increasing the sentence by half
The base sentence is increased by half where the injury causes permanent weakening of a sense or organ, a bone fracture, permanent speech difficulty, a fixed facial scar, danger to life or premature birth. Medical classification, including the effect of a fracture on life functions, is established through forensic assessment.
Consequences doubling the base sentence
The base sentence is doubled where the result is an incurable illness or vegetative state, loss of the function of a sense or organ, loss of speech or reproductive ability, permanent facial change or miscarriage. Whether a medical consequence falls within these categories requires expert evaluation.
Injury to more than one person
Where one negligent act injures multiple persons, Article 89(4) provides imprisonment from nine months to five years. Law No. 7571 increased the former range of six months to three years. The legal unity of the act and each victim’s medical result must be assessed together.
Where the offender is also severely victimised
Article 22(6) exceptionally permits no punishment where the consequence has so severely victimised the offender in personal and family circumstances that punishment is unnecessary. For conscious negligence, a reduction from one half to one sixth may be made. Ordinary grief or financial loss does not automatically satisfy this provision.
Common applications
Traffic collisions
Speed, right of way, following distance, lane use, visibility, road conditions and the injured person’s conduct are examined. A collision report is relevant but not conclusive. CCTV, vehicle damage, braking evidence, electronic vehicle data, witness statements and expert reports may alter the assessment.
Alcohol, excessive speed or continued driving despite an obvious danger may support an inquiry into conscious negligence, but no single factor establishes it automatically. The accused’s actual perception of the specific risk remains material.
Occupational accidents
Criminal responsibility of an employer, manager, safety professional, site supervisor or employee depends on personal duties and actual authority, not title alone. Risk assessments, training, equipment inspections, protective equipment, shift arrangements and the supervision chain are important evidence.
Medical treatment
An adverse medical outcome is not automatically negligent injury. Indication, informed consent, compliance with medical standards, the distinction between complication and malpractice, and causation must be examined with expert assistance by reference to the medical knowledge and working conditions at the time.
Causation, fault and the victim’s conduct
Attribution of the result
A breach alone is insufficient. The inquiry asks whether the injury would have occurred even without the breach, whether the conduct increased a prohibited risk and whether the outcome represents the materialisation of that risk. A wholly extraordinary independent cause may break attribution, depending on the facts.
Fault of multiple persons
Each person is responsible for their own negligence. Several persons may breach different duties in the same event. An expert’s percentage allocation is not the final legal decision; the court must identify which duty each person breached and how that breach contributed to the injury.
Contributory conduct of the victim
The victim’s carelessness does not always remove the offender’s liability. Whether it was the sole cause, the contribution of the accused’s breach and foreseeability must be examined. Victim fault may have different effects on sentencing and civil compensation.
Complaint and criminal reconciliation
Six-month complaint period
Negligent injury is generally complaint-dependent. Under Article 73, the six-month period begins when the entitled person knows both the act and the offender, subject to the limitation period. The basic form remains complaint-dependent even if committed with conscious negligence.
Cases prosecuted without a complaint
No complaint is required where one of the consequences in Article 89(2), (3) or (4) is caused through conscious negligence. The authorities proceed ex officio. If the aggravated result arises from ordinary negligence, a complaint is required.
Criminal reconciliation
Article 253 of the Code of Criminal Procedure expressly lists negligent injury under Article 89 as eligible for reconciliation. This can include aggravated conscious-negligence forms prosecuted ex officio because the offence is specifically enumerated. Participation is not an admission of guilt. The obligation, performance date and effect on compensation claims should be drafted clearly; allegations of a non-reconcilable offence against the same victim require separate examination.
Evidence and forensic reports
Medical evidence
Examination findings, discharge summaries, imaging, operation records and provisional or final forensic reports establish the nature of the injury. Some consequences cannot be classified at the first examination. Although ‘treatable by simple medical intervention’ is not a separate penalty tier in Article 89, medical proof remains essential to establish injury and aggravated consequences.
Event-specific records
Traffic cases may require CCTV, vehicle and road examinations and electronic data; occupational cases may require training, assignment, inspection and equipment records; medical cases require the patient file, consent and procedure records. Preservation should be requested promptly because retention periods differ.
Challenging an expert report
An expert report should identify the violated safety rule, the person to whom it applied and the causal link. Concrete objections may be raised to a report that conflicts with video, witnesses or medical documents, or relies only on job title or an abstract percentage. A supplementary or multidisciplinary report may be requested.
Investigation and trial
Reporting and investigation
A complaint may be filed with the public prosecutor or law enforcement. It should state the time, place, persons, medical documents and available evidence. The prosecution collects incriminating and exculpatory evidence and may decline prosecution where sufficient suspicion is absent.
Competent court and simplified proceedings
Proceedings are generally heard by a criminal court of first instance. For the basic form, whose maximum sentence is two years, the court may choose simplified proceedings if the other conditions of Article 251 are met. This is discretionary, not automatic. Aggravated consequences, conscious-negligence increases and additional charges may affect the procedural assessment.
Civil compensation
Criminal proceedings and claims for pecuniary or non-pecuniary damages are distinct. Treatment costs, loss of earning capacity, care costs and moral harm may require separate civil, insurance or occupational-accident procedures. Criminal reports are relevant but do not replace the civil court’s assessment. A reconciliation agreement should be reviewed for its effect on compensation rights.
Limitation period
Considering the statutory maximum penalties in Article 89, the ordinary prosecution limitation period for adults is eight years under Article 66(1)(e). Suspension and interruption may affect the calculation. In complaint-dependent cases, the eight-year period does not replace the six-month complaint deadline.
Frequently asked questions
Does every injury collision constitute an offence?
No. A breach of duty, causation and attribution of the result must be established in addition to injury. An unavoidable event or a result caused solely by the injured person may be assessed differently.
Is the collision report conclusive on fault?
No. It is initial evidence and must be considered with video, inspection, vehicle evidence, witnesses and expert findings. Material errors and omissions may be challenged.
Does withdrawal of the complaint always close the case?
Withdrawal may affect a complaint-dependent case under Article 73. It does not by itself end proceedings where an aggravated Article 89(2)-(4) consequence was caused through conscious negligence and prosecution is ex officio. Reconciliation has distinct procedural effects.
Is a judicial fine always available?
Article 89(1) provides imprisonment or a judicial fine as alternatives. Aggravated consequences, conscious negligence and sentencing rules require case-specific analysis. Article 89(4), involving multiple injured persons, directly prescribes imprisonment.
Official sources and review note
Review date: 25 September 2026. This article was prepared using current official Criminal Code and Criminal Procedure Code texts, the Ministry of Justice reconciliation list and the Forensic Medicine Institute injury guide. It provides general information; fault, classification, deadlines and evidence require individual assessment.
Turkish Criminal Code No. 5237 — Articles 22, 66, 73 and 89
Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271 — Articles 158, 251 and 253
Ministry of Justice — Offences Eligible for Criminal Reconciliation
Forensic Medicine Institute — Guide to the Forensic Assessment of Injury