Facts
On 5 August 2023 a motorcycle hit the rear of the claimant's foreign-registered car, and its unidentified rider left the scene. Relying on an assessment from the claimant's country of residence, where the car is registered, that put the damage at EUR 4,116.02 including VAT, the claimant sued the motorcycle's owner and its compulsory motor insurer. The unquantified claim was brought provisionally for EUR 40 in damage and EUR 10 for loss of use, payable in Turkish lira at the euro rate on the payment date. The insurer argued that the claimant's own assessor's report could not be relied on and that damage had to follow insurance practice and the regulations. The court appointed a mechanical engineer as expert.
Question
The court had to decide whether, in an accident for which the motorcyclist was wholly at fault, the claimant's car had suffered any concrete damage calling for compensation. The assessment obtained abroad and the findings of the court-appointed expert pointed in different directions. In assessing the damage, the expert had also had AI review the accident photographs, which made it relevant whether a report including that AI review could ground the judgment. The reasoned judgment names neither the software nor the method used, and it does not set out the content of the objections that the parties' lawyers filed against the report.
Decision
The expert report of 21 September 2025 put 100% of the fault on the motorcyclist, for whose fault the owner was liable. It recorded, however, that no damage could be found on the car's struck rear, that the photographs had been given to AI for review and that even the AI found none, so no loss of use or assessment fee arose. Both sides filed comments and objections on the report. On 10 February 2026 the court found it open to review and sufficient to decide the case. As there was no damage requiring repair, it dismissed the claim and ordered the claimant to bear the TRY 3,120 mandatory mediation fee. The judgment was final given the amount in dispute.
Why it matters
The reasoned judgment does not treat the AI review as separate evidence; repeating the report's wording, it presents the AI result as support for the expert's own finding. The court did not discuss the use of AI, and the tool, its reliability and its method go unmentioned. As the judgment was final on account of the amount in dispute, no higher court reviewed this approach. The case raises the question of how experts using AI tools should explain their method in the report and how parties can test it.
Related stages
The judgment is published on the UYAP case-law database marked 'final' (KESİNLEŞTİ). It became public through press reports in July 2026 (NTV, 3 July 2026, citing Sabah), which called it a first in Turkish law and a 'EUR 4,000 case'; the claim was in fact brought for EUR 50 in total, and the 'first' label could not be verified. The Istanbul 14th Commercial Court's judgment, in which the court disclosed that it had itself used AI to verify and translate foreign case law, is covered in a separate entry.