JAPAN Law and Practice Contributed by: Shingo Yamada, Yugo Komori, Yasuhiro Akita and Takuma Inoue, Oh-Ebashi LPC & Partners
2.10 Courts in Which Product Liability Claims Are Brought There are no specialised courts dedicated to prod - uct liability proceedings; such cases are heard by the ordinary civil courts, namely the District Courts and the Summary Courts. Claims not exceeding JPY1.4 million are in principle heard by the Summary Courts, whilst all other claims are heard by the District Courts. However, product lia - bility proceedings generally require specialised exper - tise and involve complex arguments and evidence, making them ill-suited to the expeditious procedures of the Summary Courts. Accordingly, even where the amount of the claim does not exceed JPY1.4 million, cases may at the court’s discretion be heard by the District Courts. In Japan, since there is no jury system for civil pro - ceedings (in contrast, in criminal proceedings, there is a lay judge system where members of the public participate in certain types of cases), product liability proceedings are conducted solely before professional judges. 2.11 Appeal Mechanisms for Product Liability Claims In Japan, civil proceedings operate based on a three- tier system of appeals. In product liability proceed - ings, as in ordinary civil proceedings, a party that has been wholly or partially unsuccessful may appeal, first to the High Court and thereafter to the Supreme Court. First Appeal The first appeal is heard by the High Court. As this is a full rehearing on both fact and law, the appellant may raise any point of alleged error or improper assess - ment in the first instance judgment, including errors in fact-finding and misapplication of law. A notice of appeal must be filed at the court of first instance within 14 days of receipt of the first instance judgment. The notice of appeal need not contain detailed grounds; it suffices to file a document stating that the party intends to appeal. The detailed grounds of appeal are set out in a statement of reasons for appeal (ie, an appellate brief), which is required to be filed within 50 days of the filing of the notice of
contract. In all three types of causes of action, the burden of proving the facts constituting the cause of action lies with the plaintiff (ie, the victim). The burden of proof in respect of defences (see 2.12 Defences to Product Liability Claims ) lies with the defendant (eg, a manufacturer, etc). The required standard of proof is, as under the general principle of civil proceedings, a high degree of prob - ability, exceeding the balance of probabilities. Factual Presumption Under the Product Liability Act As noted above, in proceedings for damages under the Product Liability Act, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving the facts constituting the cause of action. There is no provision for a shifting of the burden of proof or a statutory presumption in respect of the existence of a defect or causation between a defect and damage. Nonetheless, in practice, the court has substantially reduced the burden on plaintiffs in many cases by applying a “factual presumption” for a defect or cau - sation or both. A “factual presumption” refers to the process by which the court, based on free evalua - tion of evidence, infers the existence of one fact from another. For example, if a product accident occurred whilst a victim used the product in an ordinary manner, the court often presumes that the product is defec - tive. In such cases, the plaintiff (ie, the victim) is not required to prove the details of the defect or the scien - tific mechanism of the accident, whilst the defendant (ie, the manufacturer, etc) is required to establish facts to rebut the presumption, such as another cause of the accident. Although a factual presumption is merely an inferential step in the court’s fact-finding process, once such a presumption is drawn, it is not easy for the defendant to rebut it. As a result, in cases where a factual pre - sumption is established, the plaintiff’s claim is often upheld. Accordingly, in many product liability cases, the structure of the dispute is such that the plaintiff argues and proves that there was no problem with the use or management of the product, whilst the defend - ant counterargues that the product was used in an unanticipated manner.
199 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook