In short
Loss of support is the economic counterpart of the relationship of care in an event that ends in death; it is not a copy of the pair of pecuniary and non-pecuniary compensation.
The line of insurance and fault is in the article on insurance in a traffic accident. A work accident is in the article on compensation for a work accident.
If the expert who calculates proceeds by assumption, an objection arises.
Related articles: insurance and fault.
Why is compensation for loss of support a separate heading?
Compensation for loss of support is a special type of compensation that focuses on making good the economic loss of the relatives who remain, in events that end in death. This claim, differently from the classic approach of "I suffered harm", is built on the support that would have been provided if the person who died had lived no longer being able to be given. It therefore requires a technical assessment both as to entitlement and as to the calculation.
In practice this compensation often comes onto the agenda together with compensation for a traffic accident, compensation for a work accident, claims arising from a health practice, or events that are the subject of a criminal investigation. The fate of the claim, however, depends not only on the heading of the event, but on the strength of proof of the relationship of support and on the loss being made concrete. For that reason it matters that a correct plan of evidence is built from the first day of the file.
This text is in the nature of general information. Because the conditions of every event, the relationship of the parties, and the structure of the evidence are different, a definite legal result can be determined by examination of the file.
How should the concept of support be understood?
"Support" does not consist only of an economic contribution that brings a salary. Elements such as the contribution to livelihood that the person who died provided regularly, support by work inside the home, participation in education expenses, or the responsibility of care can enter the assessment too. Particularly in relationships inside the family, the scope of the actual arrangement of support is examined as particular to the file.
The existence of the relationship of support is explained by the fact that the person making the claim was dependent on the person who died in an economic sense, or at least received regular help from them. The more strongly the proof of this relationship is built, the sounder the ground of the claim for compensation becomes. An abstract statement of "they would have helped" alone is not seen as enough in most files.
While assessing the relationship of support, the court examines together the ordinary course of life, the social and economic position of the parties, living together or a relationship of regular contribution, and the documents. This overall approach helps a result that fits what is fair to be found.
Who can make a claim?
In compensation for loss of support, the persons who make a claim most often are the spouse and the children. For a mother and a father too, a possibility of a claim can arise according to the existence of a concrete relationship of support. Beside this, persons who stay outside the limit of official kinship, but who were supported in fact, can also claim a right on certain conditions.
The point to watch here is that being an heir and compensation for loss of support are not the same thing. Even if a person is an heir, they may not be able to receive this compensation because they did not receive actual support; by contrast, someone who is not an heir can make a claim by proving a regular relationship of support. This separation directly affects the approach of the file.
In debates about entitlement, civil-registry records, dependence on income, the standard of living, and past habits of payment are assessed together. Particularly in contested files, clarifying this area at an early stage reduces the period of the trial.
The basic conditions the compensation rests on
In a claim for compensation for loss of support, in most files these elements are expected to be set out together:
- The existence of an event that ended in death
- An adequate causal link between the event and the death
- A real relationship of support between the person making the claim and the person who died
- Economic loss arising because of the loss of support
- The relationship of responsibility being able to be built in law
A weakness in one of these elements can affect the whole of the claim. For example, if the relationship of support cannot be made concrete, the legal ground can stay insufficient even if the calculation of the loss is made. Similarly, if the link between the cause of death and the responsibility is in dispute, long expert processes can come onto the agenda in the file.
In situations where the death is the subject of a criminal investigation, the findings of material fact in the criminal file can be important for the compensation file. This intersection requires strategic following from the perspective of criminal law.
Why is the calculation a technical process?
The calculation of compensation for loss of support is not a mathematical operation of a single line. A great many elements are assessed together, such as the age of the person who died, the level of income, their professional future, the period of support, the life expectation of the holders of the right, working capacity, and the rates of sharing inside the family. For that reason an expert's report plays a decisive part in most actions.
The headings often disputed in the calculation are these:
- How will the real level of the income be determined?
- How will earnings that are not regular be assessed?
- On which assumption will the period of support be built?
- How will the sharing among the holders of the right be made?
- How will possible social-security payments have an effect?
Each of these headings can change the result of the file. A lack of a document of income, or a wrong assumption, can create a serious deviation in the amount of compensation. For that reason the calculation report needs to be looked at together with its assumptions, and not only as a table of the result.
Management of evidence: which documents are critical?
For the claim to strengthen, the evidence needs to be gathered early. As the time that passes after the event lengthens, access to some documents can become harder, or a problem of consistency can arise in witness statements. For that reason it matters that a systematic preparation of the file is made.
Evidence often used in practice:
- Payrolls, tax records, social-security breakdowns
- Bank transfers and records of regular payment
- Official documents that show living together
- Witness accounts and statements of the social circle
- Minutes of the event, the autopsy, and forensic reports
- Correspondence and documents that show the actual side of the relationship of support
The thought that the relationship of support rests only on the official bond of marriage can be incomplete. Different models, such as an actual union, support in the care of an older person, or support for education, can come onto the agenda too. In files of this kind, however, the burden of proof must be built more carefully.
Carrying on the criminal process and the compensation process together
It is a situation often met that there is a criminal investigation in events that end in death. The evidence gathered in the criminal file, the debate about fault, and the way the event came about can affect the claim for compensation. The aim of the two processes is different all the same: the criminal trial looks at responsibility from the point of view of public order, while the compensation process aims at making good the economic loss.
For that reason an approach of "nothing can be done before the criminal file ends" is not always right. Taking into account limitation, the security of the evidence, and the chain of responsibility, advancing at the same time can sometimes be preferred. The choice of approach must be made according to the concrete event.
It is also possible for the character of the criminal charge in the file to shift to different headings. For example, there can be a possibility that an event which looked different at the start turns, with the evidence, into another offence. For that reason following the development of the criminal file regularly keeps the claims for compensation current.
Is there a possibility of a solution outside the action?
In some disputes about loss of support, the parties can consider routes of solution outside the action. Negotiation can be practical particularly in files where responsibility is accepted in general, and the disagreement concentrates more on the amount and the plan of payment.
There are serious points to watch in a solution outside the action too:
- The scope of the agreement must be clear
- The calendar of payment, and the method of security, must be written openly
- The rights that are waived, and those that are not, must be separated
- The mechanism of application in a case of breach must be determined
Uncertain texts, even if they secure a settlement in the short term, later produce a new dispute. For that reason the text of the agreement must be prepared as carefully as the claim.
Local practice and the Ankara context
In the practice of trials in Ankara too, files of compensation for loss of support are examined within the frame of the general legislation. The caseload of the local court, the period of appointing an expert, and the calendar of hearings can affect the speed of the file; the basic principles relating to entitlement and to the calculation of the loss do not change.
Particularly in files with many parties, managing the allegations of different persons making a claim in the same file can create a technical difficulty. Separating the evidence person by person, and reading the calculation report transparently, supports the trial advancing soundly. At this point management of the process requires organisation of the file, not only legal knowledge.
Mistakes often made in practice
Some mistakes that are repeated in files of loss of support are these:
- Resting the claim of entitlement only on the tie in the civil registry
- Delaying the documentation of the relationship of support
- Leaving the income data abstract
- Neglecting the calculation of limitation
- Running an independent claim without following the criminal file at all
- Not checking the assumptions in the calculation report
These mistakes can lower the value of a claim that could be seen as justified. Whereas correct preparation made in the early period increases both the quality of the trial and the accuracy of the claim.
Settlement and preparation before the action
In some files of loss of support, the side of responsibility may be accepting the position, or there may be insurance cover. In these situations negotiation before the action, or the possibility of a settlement, can be assessed. In every process of negotiation, however, it is a condition that the heads of the claim are determined in full and that the minute is built clearly.
In the text of the settlement these headings in particular must be clarified: the scope, the amount, the calendar of payment, and the limits of the rights that are waived. An uncertain agreement does not remove the risk of a new action later. For that reason, even if settlement is preferred, documentation and the technical assessment must not be neglected.
A note of result and information
Compensation for loss of support is a technical field that aims to make good the loss that arises because the economic support after the death was cut. For the claim to be strong, entitlement, the relationship of support, the calculation of the loss, and the following of procedure must be taken together. In events where there is a criminal file, the interaction of the processes asks for attention separately.
This writing is for general information. Every dispute is assessed differently according to the structure of the parties, the arrangement of the evidence, the frame of responsibility, and the current legislation. It is not sound to foresee a definite amount, or a result, without an analysis of the concrete event being made.
Where the head of loss of support is separated
The head of loss of support is not counted as the same line as the share of the inheritance and non-pecuniary compensation. The office being in Çankaya does not change the authority with venue; this separation is read from the record. The calculation is built according to the document of care and of income in the file.
Conclusion
This writing is for general information. The document, the period, and the procedure of the concrete event must be read separately; there is no promise of a result from memory.