Sometimes causing intentional damage is necessary to prevent heavier losses, in which case all the beneficiaries must share in the loss caused by the non-occurrence of possible heavy damage. In this case, the three elements are not true, and only proving the imminent danger and the connection between the committed act and the prevention of that loss is sufficient. This type of damage is called "common damage" or "joint damage".
There have been various examples of the conditions of compensation for which the three pillars have not been observed. In this research, an analytical-descriptive method has been used to discuss the state of compensation for damage outside of civil liability, one of which is common damage. The purpose of the research is to identify joint damage as one of the examples of non-contractual damage compensation and its legal requirements, because in the current situation, by focusing on the three pillars of civil responsibility, the individual rights of the injured may be violated due to the benefit In order to prevent damage, compensation should be taken.
Regarding common damage, the legislator only directly mentioned this type of damage in Article 185 of the maritime law, but did not include it in the establishment of compensation. In the current silence of the law, it is necessary to recognize this type of damage in all civil affairs according to Article 167 of the Constitution.