The failure of an unmaintained elevator’s brakes, a non-functional fire extinguishing system, or an unrenewed electrical installation… These neglects often lead to severe material and moral damages, and even fatal accidents. So, who is responsible? Is it the building owner, the manager, or the maintenance company? In this article, we examine the building owner’s strict liability, the manager’s proxy liability, elevator and fire safety obligations, and the compensation and criminal consequences resulting from maintenance neglects, in light of established case law.
The building/structure owner is strictly liable for damages arising from deficiencies in the maintenance of the structure (TCO Art. 69). Even without fault, they are liable if a causal link is established.
In case of maintenance deficiency, along with the owner, the holders of usufruct and right of residence are also jointly and severally liable (TCO Art. 69/2).
The manager is obliged to take the necessary measures for the maintenance of the main real estate; they are liable as an agent/proxy towards the flat owners (FPA Art. 35, 38). In case of negligence, they face compensation and criminal liability.
Monthly maintenance + annual periodic inspection is mandatory for elevators; an elevator with a red tag is taken out of service. The excuse “the budget was insufficient / flat owners did not pay” does not remove liability.
Maintenance receipts, periodic inspection reports, and service contracts are the most critical means of proof.
1. Strict Liability of the Building Owner (TCO Art. 69-70)
According to Article 69 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, the owner of a building or structure is liable for damages arising from defects in its construction or **deficiencies in its maintenance**. This is a case of **strict liability**: The owner cannot escape liability with the defense, “I am not at fault, I showed due diligence.” Elements such as elevators, balconies, and stairs are also considered within the scope of “structures.”
The only condition for liability to arise is the existence of a **proper causal link** (causation) between the lack of maintenance and the damage; the burden of proof for this link generally lies with the injured party. If circumstances that sever the causal link —such as **force majeure** (earthquake, flood, etc.), **gross negligence of the injured party**, or **gross negligence of a third party**— are sufficiently intense, the owner may be absolved of liability.
The source of the damage determines the liable party: In cases of **construction defects**, the owner is generally solely liable; whereas in cases of **maintenance deficiencies**, the usufructuaries and holders of the right of residence are also jointly and severally liable along with the owner. Furthermore, Article 70 of the Turkish Code of Obligations grants the person facing the danger of damage from a structure the authority to request necessary measures from the rights holders (right of prevention).
The 3rd Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, File No. 2022/7075, Decision No. 2022/8005, Date 19.10.2022, emphasized that, according to Article 69/2 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, usufructuaries and holders of the right of residence are also jointly and severally liable along with the owner for damages arising from deficiencies in the building’s maintenance.
2. Manager’s Liability in Condominium Ownership (Condominium Law Articles 20, 35, 38)
In structures subject to condominium ownership, maintenance and repair are both a **common expense** and a **management duty**:
Maintenance measures (Condominium Law Art. 35/b): The manager is obliged to take the necessary measures for the protection, maintenance, and repair of the main property. Ensuring the monthly maintenance and annual periodic inspection of elevators is the primary duty of the manager.
Capacity as an agent (Condominium Law Art. 38): The manager is liable to the unit owners exactly like an agent. If they cause damage to the site through negligent omission, the compensation paid can be reclaimed from them.
Common expense (Condominium Law Art. 20): Maintenance and repair costs of common facilities such as elevators and fire systems are common expenses for all unit owners; in case of damage arising from common areas, the owner’s liability is evaluated jointly with Article 69 of the Turkish Code of Obligations and Article 20 of the Condominium Law.
What is important is this: The manager cannot escape the maintenance obligation and the resulting liability on the grounds that “the unit owners did not want to pay” or “the budget was insufficient.” They are expected to take the necessary measures, convene the board to request the expenses, and halt usage if there is a danger.
3. Elevator Safety and Operating Obligations
The elevator is one of the highest-risk technical elements in terms of building management. The obligations are clear:
Written maintenance contract: The building manager must sign a written maintenance contract with an authorized elevator maintenance service (Elevator Operation and Maintenance Regulation Art. 14).
Monthly maintenance: The elevator must be maintained once a month by an authorized service.
Annual periodic inspection: A periodic inspection (label inspection) must be carried out once a year by a Type A Inspection Body.
The meaning and results of the labels given as a result of the periodic inspection:
Green Compliant — operational. Blue/Yellow Minor/defective — deficiencies must be rectified within the specified period. Red Unsafe — use is immediately stopped (can be sealed).
The follow-up of these processes is the responsibility of the building supervisor. Leaving an elevator with a red tag or without a certificate of conformity open for use poses a serious safety risk and legal-criminal liability for building owners and managers. Conversely, if the manager has fulfilled all legal obligations and obtained a green tag, and it is a situation where they could not foresee the danger, they may be considered faultless in the event of an accident.
Sharing of responsibility: In elevator accidents, liability is often joint and several: The management that neglects the inspection/maintenance follow-up and the maintenance company that performs faulty/incomplete maintenance or fails to report a part that needs replacement can be held jointly responsible. The existence of a contract with the maintenance company does not, by itself, absolve the management of responsibility in all cases; the actual determining factors are the causal link and the distribution of fault.
4. Fire Safety Systems
In accordance with the Regulation on the Protection of Buildings from Fire, it is essential that fire detection, alarm, and suppression systems are kept operational at all times. Arranging for the periodic control, testing, and maintenance of these systems as stipulated in relevant standards is the responsibility of the building owner or manager. In buildings subject to condominium ownership, fire safety responsibility is directly assigned to the building manager.
Lack of maintenance of fire systems is evaluated within the scope of the owner’s strict liability under Article 69 of the TCO (Turkish Code of Obligations); it gives rise to significant compensation liabilities to the extent that a causal link is established. In Supreme Court practice, failure to keep fire suppression systems operational gives rise to the owner’s liability; however, the tenant’s fault does not entirely eliminate this liability. On the other hand, even if the system is tested periodically, the service provider company may be held responsible in case of defective design/incorrect definition (for example, if it is installed in a way that detects fire late).
5. Electrical Installation and Other Technical Maintenances
The same principles apply to electrical and mechanical installations. An owner who fails to renew an outdated electrical installation may be held responsible for the resulting damage; while management that neglects the annual periodic inspection of the installation may be liable for compensation to the extent of its fault (secondary fault). The assessment here is again made based on the causal link and the distribution of fault.
6. Criminal Aspect: Causing Injury/Death by Negligence
If injury or death occurs as a result of maintenance negligence, public lawsuits may be filed against those responsible under the Turkish Penal Code (TCK) for offenses of causing injury by negligence or causing death by negligence. In Supreme Court practice, a manager who fails to remedy a defect in time and does not prevent the use of a faulty elevator can be considered “primarily at fault”; and in the case of equipment without periodic inspections and lacking safety features, the operator can be found gravely at fault. For this reason, personal criminal liability also arises, in addition to compensation liability.
7. Liability and Fault Distribution (General Framework)
| Responsible Party | Type of Negligence | Legal Consequence / Fault Status |
|---|---|---|
| Building owner | Lack of maintenance of structure/annex (elevator, fire system, etc.) | Strict liability (TCO Art. 69); compensation if causality exists |
| Building/site manager | Failure to arrange periodic inspection/maintenance, failure to shut down faulty elevator | Primary fault; compensation + criminal liability |
| Maintenance company | Faulty/incomplete maintenance, failure to report a part that needs replacement | Primary/joint and several fault; contractual and tort liability |
| Management (reported defect) | Failure to remedy the reported defect within a reasonable time | Liability proportional to fault (partial) |
| Usufructuary/occupancy right holder | Contribution to lack of maintenance | Joint and several liability with the owner (TCO Art. 69/2) |
Note: Fault rates are determined by expert examination in each specific case; the table is for general framework purposes.
Documents to be kept ready for proof:
A written maintenance contract made with an authorized service.
Monthly maintenance receipts and fault/service records.
Annual periodic inspection reports and label documents.
Records pertaining to hazard/fault notifications and measures taken (e.g., suspension of use).
These documents are critically important for avoiding liability or determining the fault ratio in one’s favor in a potential dispute.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Who is responsible in an elevator accident?
Firstly, the building/site owner is strictly liable under Article 69 of the Turkish Code of Obligations; if the manager has fault/negligence, the manager is also personally liable. If there is faulty or insufficient maintenance, the maintenance company can also be held jointly and severally liable. Liability is determined based on the causal link and the distribution of fault.
Can the manager evade maintenance responsibility by saying “the budget was insufficient”?
No. Non-payment by apartment owners or budget insufficiency does not relieve the manager of their maintenance and safety obligations. The manager is obliged to take necessary precautions, request expenses from the board, and suspend use if there is a danger.
Does signing a contract with a maintenance company relieve the management of responsibility?
Not by itself. The management is obliged to follow up on periodic inspections, shut down faulty/red-tagged elevators, and have reported malfunctions fixed. Even if a contract has been made, if this follow-up is neglected, the management may be deemed at fault.
What should be done with an elevator that has received a red tag?
A red tag means “unsafe”; the elevator’s use must be immediately stopped, and it must be taken out of service until the necessary revisions are made and compliance (green tag) is obtained. Otherwise, the management and owner will be responsible for any resulting damages.
Does negligence in maintenance lead to criminal liability?
Yes. If injury or death occurs as a result of negligence in maintenance, a public lawsuit can be filed against those responsible for negligent injury or negligent homicide under the Turkish Penal Code (TCK); this is a separate and additional liability from compensation liability.
Resources and Our Related Articles
Official source:Condominium Law No. 634 (mevzuat.gov.tr)
Legal Procedures to Follow for Changing the Site Manager and Appointing a New Manager
What Can Apartment Management Do If the Tenant Fails to Pay Dues?
Why Is Expert Lawyer Support Necessary?
Maintenance and repair negligence lawsuits are based on strict liability (TCO Art. 69), the manager’s agency liability (CLM Art. 38), joint and several liability, and the correct establishment of the causal link. For those who have suffered damage, directing compensation to the correct party; and for the management/owner, demonstrating blamelessness or the degree of fault with maintenance documents is critically important. Considering the criminal aspect, managing the process correctly from the outset prevents loss of rights.
2M Law Firm provides support to apartment-site residents, those who suffered damage, and managements in the Tuzla, Pendik, Kartal, Maltepe and Gebze/Kocaeli regions on matters of condominium law and site management law, compensation lawsuits arising from elevator/fire/installation accidents, and manager responsibility. For an assessment regarding your specific case: 2mhukuk.com
This article is for general informational purposes; it does not constitute legal advice or legal service. Each dispute should be evaluated under its unique circumstances.
