JAPAN Law and Practice Contributed by: Shingo Yamada, Yugo Komori, Yasuhiro Akita and Takuma Inoue, Oh-Ebashi LPC & Partners
appeal under the Rules of Civil Procedure; however, the appeal will not be dismissed for that reason even if the appellate brief is filed after the deadline. Second Appeal The second appeal, or the final appeal, is heard by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reviews ques - tions of law only; it does not conduct its own fact- finding but decides based on the findings of fact made by the lower courts. A notice of appeal must be filed at the court of sec - ond instance within 14 days of receipt of the second instance judgment. An appeal to the Supreme Court lies only where the judgment is contrary to the Con - stitution or where there is a material procedural irregu - larity. The Supreme Court may also accept a case for review on the application of a party if the case is con - sidered to involve an important question concerning the interpretation of a statutory provision. 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 are set out in a statement of reasons for final appeal (ie, final appellate brief), which must be filed within 50 days of service of the notice of acceptance of the appeal. Fail - ure to file the final appellate brief within the prescribed period will result in the dismissal of the application. 2.12 Defences to Product Liability Claims In product liability cases, a defendant may assert gen - eral defences in civil proceedings, such as statute of limitations and contributory negligence. Especially in cases of contractual liability, as described in 2.1 Product Liability Causes of Action and Sources of Law , a defendant (ie, a seller) is held not responsi - ble for damages by establishing that no fault is attrib - utable to it. In addition, especially in civil proceedings for damages under the Product Liability Act, the following defences are available to a defendant (ie, a manufacturer, etc). Development Risks Defence A manufacturer, etc, is held not responsible for dam - ages by establishing that the defect in the product
could not have been recognised in light of the state of the scientific or technical knowledge at the time of the delivery of the product. The Supreme Court has confirmed that the “state of the scientific or technical knowledge” refers to the highest level of scientific or technical knowledge available anywhere in the world at that time. Given this exceptionally high standard, there have been no cases, at least based on publicly available information, where the development risks defence has been successfully established. Component or Raw Material Manufacturer’s Defence (Design Instruction Defence) Whilst a manufacturer, etc, of a component or a raw material is generally held responsible for damages when the product incorporating the component or raw material is defective due to a defect of the com - ponent or raw material, it may be exempt from liability by establishing that the defect arose solely as a result of compliance with design instructions by the manu - facturer, etc, of the product and the component or material manufacturer was not at fault in causing the defect in accordance with the instruction by the prod - uct manufacturer, etc. Given the difficulty of establish - ing a lack of fault, there have been no cases, at least based on publicly available information, where such component or raw material manufacturer’s defence has been successfully established. 2.13 The Impact of Regulatory Compliance on Product Liability Claims In Japan, there is no mechanism whereby compliance with regulatory requirements automatically confers immunity from liability. There is no provision to the effect that a regulatory violation gives rise to a pre - sumption of a defect, either. Whether liability in damages arises is assessed against the elements of the relevant cause of action (see 2.1 Product Liability Causes of Action and Sources of Law ). The content of the applicable regulatory requirements and whether those requirements have been complied with are among the circumstances taken into account when assessing the existence of a defect. As a result, regulatory non-compliance is more likely to lead to a finding of liability.
200 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook