ISTANBUL ……. CIVIL COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE
CASE NO: 2013/………. Main
RESPONDENT (DEFENDANT):
ATTORNEY: Attorney
PLAINTIFF:
REPRESENTATIVE:
SUBJECT: Submission of our response to the lawsuit.
EXPLANATIONS
1.) First, we object to the pendency of the case before us. As can be understood from the complaint, the plaintiff has filed a lawsuit against the client company for the same damage in case no. 2013/………… of the Istanbul … Civil Court of First Instance. It is not in accordance with the rules of law for the plaintiff to file a new lawsuit for the same damage. Moreover, the damage resulting from the traffic accident will be determined and ruled upon in the case numbered 2013/………… of the Istanbul ….. Civil Court of First Instance. For this reason, the plaintiff has no legal interest in filing this case.
2.) Furthermore, the plaintiff states that they have reached an agreement with the defendant insurance company regarding the payment of the amount of ………………………….. TL, which is the subject of the case, that the insurance company has given them a date for payment, and that the defendant insurance company has subsequently failed to make the payment. Insurance Inc. regarding the payment of the amount of ………………………….. TL subject to the lawsuit, that they were given a date for payment by the insurance company, and that the defendant insurance company subsequently did not make the payment because our driver, an employee of the client company, was found to be at fault. For some reason, the plaintiff’s attorney did not explain the circumstances of the traffic accident that is the subject of the lawsuit. The client company’s vehicle was rear-ended by a truck whose license plate number could not be obtained, and in the traffic accident report, it was accused of committing the offense of rear-ending, which is one of the primary offenses listed under number 04. The vehicle with license plate number 34 AA 0000, driven by the plaintiff, rear-ended the client company’s vehicle. However, the report states that the plaintiff committed the secondary fault of driving while sleepy, tired, and distracted, not the rear-end collision. The application of different penalties for the same offense undermines the reliability of the Traffic Accident Report. The plaintiff is at fault. The stationary vehicle belongs to the client company. However, the plaintiff was driving at high speed and disregarding traffic rules. The accident occurred because the plaintiff failed to maintain the required distance between vehicles.
CONCLUSION AND REQUEST: For the reasons stated and explained above, we respectfully request that our objection to the admissibility of the case be accepted and, if not, that the unfounded and unjustified lawsuit be dismissed on its merits and that the court costs and attorney’s fees be borne by the opposing party.
Defendant’s Attorney