Product Liability

2024
22nd Edition

Contributing Editors:

Adela Williams & Tom Fox
Arnold & Porter

Table of Contents

Expert Analysis Chapters
1

An Update on Proposed Changes to the Product Liability Directive
Dr Adela Williams & Tom Fox, Arnold & Porter

5

Food Products: Regulation and Risks
Samantha Silver, Emilie Civatte & Paula Margolis, Kennedys

13

Collective Litigation in the Product Liability Space: the Evolving UK Landscape
Jacqueline Harris & Mitchell Abbott, Pinsent Masons

Q&A Chapters
22

31
46

54

65

77
87

98

BrazilMattos Engelberg Echenique Advogados:
António Frota, Ubiratan Mattos, Maria Eduarda Reis &Layelli Nassif
England & Wales
Arnold & Porter: Dr Adela Williams & Tom Fox

106

117

Japan
Iwata Godo Law Offices: Shinya Tago,
Landry Guesdon & Kazuto Anzai
Malaysia
Zaid Ibrahim & Co (in association with KPMG Law):
Stanley Lee Wai Jin & Nadarashnaraj Sargunaraj
Myanmar
Allen & Gledhill (Myanmar) Co., Ltd.: Minn Naing Oo,
Thaw Dar Sein & Ayush Jhunjhunwala

FranceSignature Litigation: Sylvie Gallage-Alwis,Gaëtan de Robillard & Elias Boukachabine

126

Germany
Pinsent Masons: Sibylle Schumacher &Dr. Alexander Shchavelev

135

Singapore
Allen & Gledhill: Dr Stanley Lai, SC & David Lim

144

Spain
Faus Moliner: Xavier Moliner & Juan Martínez

GreeceBahas, Gramatidis & Partners LLP:
Dimitris Emvalomenos

155

Hong Kong
Deacons: Paul Kwan & Mandy Pang
India
AZB & Partners: Anind Thomas, Prerna Ponappa &Abhay Shetty
Indonesia
AGI Legal: Aris Budi Prasetiyo, Kevin Sidharta,
Elsie F. Hakim & Giffy Pardede

163

173
182

Switzerland
Walder Wyss: Maurice Courvoisier, Jonas Knechtli &Peter Bürkli
Taiwan
Lee and Li, Attorneys-at-Law: Patrick Marros Chu,
David Tien & Sam Huang
Turkey/Türkiye
Akin Legal: Tansu Akin
USA
Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP:James A. Frederick, Christine R. M. Kain &Kristina A. Coleman

106

Chapter 12

Japan

Japan
Shinya Tago

Landry Guesdon

Iwata Godo Law Offices

12

Liability Systems

1.1 What systems of product liability are available (i.e.
liability in respect of damage to persons or property
resulting from the supply of products found to be defective or faulty)? Is liability fault based, or strict, or both?
Does contractual liability play any role? Can liability
be imposed for breach of statutory obligations e.g.
consumer fraud statutes?

(A) Traditionally, product liability claims had been brought as
tort claims under the Civil Code of Japan. However, since
1995, claims can also be brought under the Product Liability
Act ( Law No. 85 of 1994) (PLA), which gives a plaintiff
more flexibility to seek compensation for damages caused
by a defective product. The PLA covers movable property
which is manufactured or processed (therefore excluding
real estate, electricity or agricultural products). If a defective product causes any damage to the buyer’s life, body orproperty (excluding the product itself ), the buyer can bringa product liability suit against the “manufacturer” (see definition in question 1.3) (Article 3 of the PLA).
The plaintiff is not required to prove that the manufacturer owed a duty to the plaintiff and negligently or intentionally injured the plaintiff. The plaintiff only needs todemonstrate that the product was defective, and that thedefect caused the injuries. A product can be deemed defective if it lacks the level of safety it should normally possess,taking into account its nature and characteristics, its ordinarily foreseeable uses, state of the art (scientific or technical knowledge at the time of delivery) and other relevant
circumstances relating to the product.
(B) Alternatively, if a claim cannot be brought or is unsuccessful
under the PLA, the party injured by a defective productmay still bring a tort claim under the Civil Code. An extensive reform of the Civil Code of 1896 has taken place toproduce a more comprehensive and user-friendly version,
with general principles of law derived from court precedents turned into statute. Amendments entered into force
on 1 April 2020. Article 709 provides that a person who
has intentionally or negligently infringed any right or legally
protected interest of another will be liable for any resulting
damage. In contrast with the PLA, the plaintiff must provethe defendant’s intent or negligence, and the burden of

Kazuto Anzai

proof is subject to a high standard. Causes of action under
Article 709 include fraud and misrepresentation.
(C) The Consumer Contract Act (Law No. 61 of 2000, last
amended on 25 May 2022) (CCA) protects consumers intheir dealings with merchants (business operators). Article
8 of the CCA provides that the following clauses are void if
they are included in a contract made between a consumer
and a business operator:■ Clauses which totally exempt a business operator fromliability to compensate a consumer for damage arisingfrom the business operator’s fault or which allow thebusiness operator to determine whether it should bear
any liability.
■ Clauses which partially exempt a business operator
from liability for damage arising from the business
operator’s fault (limited to default arising due to an
intentional act or gross negligence on the part of thebusiness operator, its representatives or employees) or
which allow the business operator to determine theliability from which it should be partially exempted.
■ Clauses which totally exempt a business operator fromliability for damage to a consumer, arising from a tort
committed during the business operator’s performance of a consumer contract, or which allow thebusiness operator to determine whether it should bear
any liability.
■ Clauses which partially exempt a business operator
from liability for damage to a consumer arising from atort (limited to cases in which the tort arises due to an
intentional act or the gross negligence of the business
operator, its representatives or employees), committed
during the business operator’s performance of aconsumer contract, or which allow the business operator to determine the liability from which it should bepartially exempted.
■ If a consumer contract is a contract for value, andthe subject matter delivered does not conform to theterms of the consumer contract (including a contract
for services) as to description, quality and quantity,then clauses which totally exempt a business operator from any liability to compensate a consumer fordamage caused by such nonconformity, or allow thebusiness operator to determine whether it should bear
any liability, are void; except in the event that:
Product Liability 2024

Iwata Godo Law Offices■ the consumer contract provides that the business
operator is liable to repair the product, substitutea new product, reduce its price, or offer a refund
depending on the extent of the nonconformity,
when the subject matter delivered does not conformto the terms of the contract; or■ the consumer contract is concluded between aconsumer and a business operator simultaneously
with, or after, another contract is concluded between
the consumer and another business operator
entrusted by the business operator, or between thebusiness operator and another business operator forthe benefit of the consumer, whereunder the otherbusiness operator will compensate for all or partof the damage caused by the nonconformity (e.g.
a defect), deliver substitute conforming products(without defects) or repair the defective products.
Although the CCA limits the extent to which the seller ofa product may disclaim warranties relating to a productor restrict the remedies available to a buyer injured by a
product sold by the seller, it does not offer any specificcause of action for damage caused by defective products.
(D) A claim based on breach of contract must be made by aparty to the contract. A plaintiff (generally a buyer) canbring a product liability claim against a seller who is his
counterparty in a sale and purchase contract, either forbreach of contract, or breach of implied statutory warranties under the Civil Code, provided that there is a directcontractual relationship between the injured party andthe seller of the defective product. Nowadays, in mostconsumer transactions, the end-user/buyer does not havea direct contractual relationship with the manufacturer, as
several intermediaries can be involved in the supply chain(manufacturers, suppliers, importers, wholesalers, retailers
and so on). As a result, there is often no cause of action
based on breach of contract by a consumer against a manufacturer. Depending on the circumstances, there may beother legal avenues allowing a buyer to seek remedies
against a manufacturer under the PLA or based on tort as
explained above.
The pre-reform Civil Code includes special rules on warranty
for hidden defects. The revised Code takes a unitary approachto remedies for non-performance of the duty of conformity ofdescription, quality and quantity under Articles 562 to 564 and566. The seller is obliged to deliver goods that conform to thecontract with respect to description, quality and quantity. Whenthe seller’s goods do not conform to the contract, the buyer canclaim damages and termination for non-performance under
Article 564, demand repairs under Article 562, or demand a
price reduction under Article 563. For ease of reference, we willrefer to these parts of the non-conformity concept as “defects”.
Article 415 of the Civil Code addresses liability for incomplete
performance of obligations, while Articles 562, 563 and 564
govern warranties against defects. Also relevant in this context
is Article 526 of the Commercial Code, an equivalent provision to Article 566 of the Civil Code, which applies to defects intransactions between business operators.
The parties to a contract can be released entirely or partiallyfrom their liability under the PLA, or tortious/contractual liability
under the Civil Code, by entering into an agreement on indemnification excluding or capping such liability. However, liability exclusions and limitations are strictly limited by the CCA with respect
to contracts between consumers and business operators. Notwithstanding any special agreement excluding statutory warranties, aseller’s liability would not be excluded in cases of fraud or concealment of known facts (Article 572 of the Civil Code).
Product Liability 2024

1.2 Does the state operate any special liability regimes
or compensation schemes for particular products, e.g.
medicinal products or vaccines?

The Government operates special compensation schemes forpharmaceuticals and products deemed to have specific risks.
One scheme entirely funded by the Government and establishedunder the Preventive Inoculation Law (Law No. 68 of 1948, as
amended in 2020) compensates victims of injuries caused byinoculations (including COVID-19-related). Another scheme,
industry-funded and administered by the Pharmaceuticals andMedical Devices Agency (PMDA) under the Act on Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices (Law No. 192 of 2002), provides
compensation covering the medical and funeral expenses ofindividuals and their families in the event of illness, disability ordeath caused by the side effects of pharmaceuticals.
A further scheme is administered by the Consumer Product
Safety Association under the Consumer Products Safety Act(Law No. 31 of 1973). The “SG-Mark” (safe goods mark) is a
product certification system. The Association prescribes stringent safety standards covering products that could be dangerous
and cause injuries or death, and only products complying withthe safety specifications and requirements of the Association
can bear the SG-Mark. The consumer compensation scheme
operates for the benefit of persons injured by these products.
Compensation from the Association is capped at 100 million yen
per person and depends on the seriousness of the injury and thecause of the accident.
1.3 Who bears responsibility for the fault/defect? The
manufacturer, the importer, the distributor, the ‘retail’supplier, or all of these?

Any natural or legal person classified as a manufacturer under
the PLA can be held liable. The PLA defines a manufacturer as:■
Any person who manufactures, processes, or imports the
product as a business.
■
Any person holding himself out to be the manufacturer ofa product by putting his name, trade name, trade mark orother indication on the product, or any person who puts
his name on the product in a manner that misleads others
into believing he is the manufacturer.
■
Any person who puts his name on a product and who, inlight of the manner in which the product has been manufactured, processed, imported or sold, or any other relevant circumstances, may be deemed a “substantial manufacturer” (de facto manufacturer).
Unless they fall within any of the aforesaid categories, the
PLA does not provide any cause of action against distributors or sellers of a product. Claims against these persons mustbe brought under the Civil Code on other grounds (breach of
implied statutory warranty, breach of contract or tort).
1.4 May a regulatory authority be found liable inrespect of a defective/faulty product? If so, in whatcircumstances?

The PLA does not exclude public bodies from its scope andwould apply to public bodies acting as the manufacturer (within
the broad meaning of the PLA), although a regulatory authority
would rarely act in this capacity. Under the State Compensation
Act, when a public official in a position to exercise public powerhas, in the performance of his duties, illegally inflicted losses
on another person, intentionally or negligently, the State or
public entity is liable to compensate such losses. When a defect

107

108

Japan

in construction or maintenance of public property has inflicted
losses on another person, the State or a public entity is liable tocompensate such losses.
1.5 In what circumstances is there an obligation torecall products, and in what way may a claim for failure
to recall be brought?

There are several pieces of legislation governing product safety
in Japan, including the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA),
the Electrical Appliances and Materials Safety Act, the Gas Business Act, the Act on the Securing of Safety and the Optimisation of Transaction of Liquefied Petroleum Gas, the Household
Goods Quality Labelling Act, the Act on the Control of Household Goods Containing Harmful Substances, the Food Sanitation Act, the Poisonous and Deleterious Substances Control
Act, the Industrial Standardisation Act ( JIS Mark LabellingAct). In addition, separate laws apply to ships, road transport
vehicles, cosmetics, quasi-drugs, pharmaceutical products andmedical equipment. These types of products are not includedin, or are excluded from, the definition of consumer products(products to be supplied mainly for use by general consumers
for their routine everyday activities) regulated by the CPSA.
The PLA does not contain provisions that would force a manufacturer (including an importer, distributor and so on) to recall
or repair a product found to be defective in a product liability
lawsuit. However, the CPSA vests powers in the competent
Minister (for the majority of consumer products, the Ministerwith regulatory oversight is the Minister of Economy, Trade andIndustry) to investigate complaints relating to particular products,
compel manufacturers and importers to disclose information
relating to allegedly unsafe products, and order product recalls orother remedial actions if the Minister finds it necessary to preventthe occurrence, or decrease the risk, of a danger.
Under the CPSA, a person engaging in the manufacture
or import of consumer products is legally obligated to investigate the cause of product accidents, and if he finds it necessary to prevent the occurrence and decrease the risk of a danger,
he must endeavour to recall said consumer products or otherwise take preventive action (Article 38, Paragraph 1). In theevent of a serious product accident, or where serious danger
has occurred to the lives or bodies of general consumers or thedanger is considered to be imminent, the competent Ministermay order the manufacturer or importer of said consumer products to recall the consumer products or otherwise take measures
to prevent occurrence (Article 39, Paragraph 1).
Separate statutory rules apply to road transport vehicles, pharmaceutical products and other products which are not treated asconsumer products regulated by the CPSA, for example: Article63-2 of the Road Transport Vehicle Act; and Article 68-9 of thePharmaceutical and Medical Devices Act.
Under the CPSA, a manufacturer/importer must report theoccurrence of a “serious product accident” to the competent
Minister (Article 35). The competent Minister may publicly
announce the serious incident (Article 36). Those that are notserious may be reported to the National Institute of Technology
and Evaluation (NITE).
1.6 Do criminal sanctions apply to the supply of defective products?

Generally not, except under the Penal Code (Law No. 45 of
1907) in the case of death or injury caused by a failure to exercise due care. Moreover, certain violations of the CPSA can giverise to criminal sanctions.

22

Causation

2.1 Who has the burden of proving fault/defect anddamage?

(A) As a general rule, the party bringing a liability claim (buyer
or injured party) bears the burden of proof.
Under the PLA, the manufacturer’s liability is strict once
it is found that the product sold was defective. Proof ofthe manufacturer’s fault/negligence or wilful misconduct
is not required in order to seek monetary compensation. A
plaintiff seeking monetary damages under the PLA must
prove that the manufacturer’s product is defective and thatthe defect has caused the plaintiff’s injuries or damage. In
practice, the plaintiff must at least prove that:■ The defendant is a manufacturer (see question 1.3).
■ There is a defect in the product that the defendant
has manufactured, supplied, placed on the market, ordelivered.
■ The plaintiff’s life, body or property has been injured
or damaged as a result of the defect in the product.
■ A damage has occurred and the amount claimed asdamages.
■ A causal link exists between the product defect and the
injury or damage.
(B) In a claim under Article 709 of the Civil Code, the plaintiff
must prove that:■ The injury was caused by a defect in the product.
■ The manufacturer negligently or intentionally breacheda duty owed to the plaintiff and this breach of duty
caused the plaintiff’s injuries or damage.
In practice, the plaintiff is at least required to prove:■ The existence of the plaintiff’s right or legally protectedinterest.
■ The existence of a breach of the plaintiff’s right orinterest.
■ The defendant’s intention or negligence in relation to
the breach.
■ The occurrence of damage and the amount claimed.
■ The causal link between the breach and the damage.
(C) For breach of contract claims, the plaintiff must prove thatthe manufacturer has breached the contract through the
supply of a defective product in breach of an express or
implied warranty and that such breach has caused somedamage to the plaintiff.
2.2 What test is applied for proof of causation? Is it
enough for the claimant to show that the defendantwrongly exposed the claimant to an increased risk of a
type of injury known to be associated with the product,even if it cannot be proved by the claimant that the
injury would not have arisen without such exposure?
Is it necessary to prove that the product to which theclaimant was exposed has actually malfunctioned andcaused injury, or is it sufficient that all the products or
the batch to which the claimant was exposed carry an
increased, but unpredictable, risk of malfunction?

The PLA does not prescribe any specific test for proof of causation. Instead, the courts will apply the standard test for causation used under the Civil Code. Under Article 709 of the Civil
Code, the plaintiff must prove causation between the defendant’s negligence and the resulting damage. The requirement has
been somewhat relaxed over time, especially as a result of mass
tort cases such as environmental pollution, where causation has
Product Liability 2024

Iwata Godo Law Offices

been almost presumed in light of circumstances (namely serious
disease and contamination, and inexperienced victims at a loss toshow causation), thereby shifting the burden of proof onto thedefendant. The Supreme Court sought to define the degree of
proof necessary for causation in Miura et al. v. Japan et al. (Supreme
Court, 29-9 MINSHU 1417, 24 October 1975), a medical malpractice case. The Supreme Court indicated that proving causation inlitigation differed from proving causation in a scientific context,
and that it was sufficient to show a high probability of causation
between facts and the occurrence of a specific result.
2.3 What is the legal position if it cannot be established which of several possible producers manufactured the defective product? Does any form of marketshare liability apply?

There is no market-share liability in Japan, one or more specificmanufacturers must be sued. When several manufacturers are
involved in a product liability suit, they are jointly and severally
liable under the PLA or based on tort. A named defendant who
has compensated the victim in excess of the share of damages heis otherwise required to bear is entitled to seek indemnificationfrom the other tortfeasors.
2.4 Does a failure to warn give rise to liability and, if
so, in what circumstances? What information, advice
and warnings are taken into account: only information
provided directly to the injured party, or also information supplied to an intermediary in the chain of supply
between the manufacturer and consumer? Does it makeany difference to the answer if the product can only beobtained through the intermediary who owes a separate obligation to assess the suitability of the product forthe particular consumer, e.g. a surgeon using a temporary or permanent medical device, a doctor prescribing a
medicine or a pharmacist recommending a medicine? Is
there any principle of ‘learned intermediary’ under yourlaw pursuant to which the supply of information to thelearned intermediary discharges the duty owed by the
manufacturer to the ultimate consumer to make available appropriate product information?

A defect may be found where the manufacturer has failed towarn consumers about the risks associated with the products, inparticular by failing to provide adequate instructions or warnings that can minimise or eliminate foreseeable risks. Japanesecourts do not recognise the “learned intermediary” doctrine,
but some lower court rulings seem to have admitted a similar
defence in relation to prescription medicine.

32
3.1

Defences and Estoppel
What defences, if any, are available?

(A) Defences can be asserted under both the PLA and the
Civil Code to avoid liability or to transfer all or part of theliability to another party.
A common defence available under the PLA and the Civil
Code (Articles 418 and 722) is comparative negligence,
which may be a partial or complete defence. Comparative
negligence can also be claimed in relation to productdefect claims brought under the PLA where the manner inwhich the plaintiff has handled, used or stored the productcan be deemed to constitute unforeseeable misuse.
A statute of limitations may also provide a valid defence
under Article 5 of the PLA and Article 724 of the Civil
Product Liability 2024

Code, if the claim is time-barred and brought beyond theapplicable three-, five-, 10- or 20-year statute of limitations(see question 5.2).
Article 4 of the PLA provides for two more defences:■ A manufacturer will not be liable if he could not havediscovered the product defect given the state of scientific or technical knowledge at the time of delivery of
the product. The manufacturer must prove that thestate of knowledge at the time of delivery was such thatthe existence of a defect could not have been known.
Basing a manufacturer’s defence on the then current
state of the art is rather difficult, as Japanese courts
have generally interpreted it very narrowly as knowledge meeting the highest scientific or technical standards then in existence.
■ A manufacturer of products to be used as a componentof, or raw material for, another product is not liable
when the defect has occurred primarily because he hascomplied with the design specifications and instructions given by the final product manufacturer, and heis not negligent with respect to the occurrence of thedefect. The component manufacturer (e.g., a subcontractor) must prove that he could not have foreseen or
prevented the defect in the product integrated into thefinal products.
(B) For breach of contract claims, customary defences are available. The seller may argue that a claim is time-barred under
the applicable statute of limitations (see question 5.2).
The other defences available to the seller are:■ Lack of simultaneous performance of the buyer’s
payment obligations in a contract where the parties’
duties are concurrent (the seller is not under an obligation to perform its duty if the buyer has failed to fulfil
its own obligations under the contract).
■ Buyer’s knowledge of the defect (or negligence in failingto notice the defect; see comparative negligence below).
■ A special agreement between the parties disclaiming
warranties and liability.
In addition, and without limitation, the seller may seek torely on:■ Comparative negligence where the plaintiff can beshown to have assumed a certain level of risks, and theplaintiff’s own negligence contributed to the injury. The
Japanese courts have adopted a comparative negligenceapproach as opposed to strict contributory negligence,
where each party’s negligence for a given injury is considered by the judge when determining damages.
■ An agreement between the parties limiting compensation (for instance, the provision of liquidated damages)
and liability.
■ The absence of fault attributable to the seller.
3.2 Is there a state of the art/development risk
defence? Is there a defence if the fault/defect in the
product was not discoverable given the state of scientific and technical knowledge at the time of supply? If
there is such a defence, is it for the claimant to provethat the fault/defect was discoverable or is it for the
manufacturer to prove that it was not?

See question 3.1. The development risk defence is available
but narrowly interpreted, as the state of technical and scientificknowledge is determined by reference to the highest standards
available at the time. As a result, manufacturers may not easily
avail themselves of this defence.

109

110

Japan

3.3 Is it a defence for the manufacturer to show that hecomplied with regulatory and/or statutory requirements
relating to the development, manufacture, licensing,marketing and supply of the product?

3.7 Are there any examples in your jurisdiction of legislation providing exemptions from product liability inrespect of products produced and/or deployed in thecontext of a public health emergency?

Compliance with applicable laws and regulations is an important factor in determining whether a product is defective.
However, compliance or the failure to comply with applicablelaws and regulations is not decisive and does not per se rule out
or trigger liability.

In Japan, there are no exemptions from product liability inrespect of products produced and/or deployed in the context
of a public health emergency. This the case even if a productliability issue arises during such an emergency, including as aresult of a pandemic.

3.4 Can claimants re-litigate issues of fault, defector the capability of a product to cause a certain type ofdamage, provided they arise in separate proceedings
brought by a different claimant, or does some form ofissue estoppel prevent this?

Claims may be brought by different claimants having suffereda damage caused by the same product. Unless there are new
grounds to re-litigate issues of fault, defect or the capability ofa product to cause a certain type of damage, the court might
dismiss the case under the doctrine of res judicata.
3.5 Can defendants claim that the fault/defect wasdue to the actions of a third party and seek a contribution or indemnity towards any damages payable to theclaimant, either in the same proceedings or in subsequent proceedings? If it is possible to bring subsequent
proceedings, is there a time limit on commencing suchproceedings?

The defendant can seek a contribution or indemnity from athird party for damages incurred by the defendant in subsequent(or concurrent) proceedings if the third party is liable for thedelivery of a defective product by the defendant.
Filing a motion asking for the consolidation (heigo) of actions
pending between two parties while actions are pending between athird party and either party is permitted, as long as the following
requirements are satisfied: (i) the existence of a nexus andcommonality between claims sufficient to justify a common judgment (Article 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP)); and (ii)the handling of claims through similar proceedings or the satisfaction of other objective consolidation requirements (Article
136 of the CCP). Based on this procedural option, a defendantcan initiate proceedings against such third party and then seek tocombine the proceedings with the original product liability suit.
There are time limits for claims against a third party,
depending on the type of claim: under the PLA, these are based
on tort or breach of contract (see question 5.2).

42

Procedure

4.1 In the case of court proceedings, is the trial by ajudge or a jury?

Judges preside over civil trials and there is no jury system.
4.2 What is the standard of proof applied by the
court? Does the court have to be satisfied of a fact “onthe balance of probabilities” (i.e. more likely than not),“beyond all reasonable doubt” or to a different or more
flexible standard?

In the McDonald’s Orange Juice case (Nagoya District Court,
30 June 1999; settled on appeal to the Nagoya High Court)
regarding an allegedly defective product no longer available
for inspection, the claimant simply had to show the producthad caused damage to her on the balance of probabilities.
Japanese courts can generally very flexibly set the standardof proof in civil proceedings depending on the industry andsector involved.
4.3 Does the court have power to appoint technicalspecialists to sit with the judge and assess the evidence
presented by the parties (i.e. expert assessors)?

The court may order the appointment of expert witnesses (seequestion 4.8) but, in principle, such experts do not sit literallywith judges. Yet, under the expert commissioner (senmon iin)
system (Article 92-2 of the CCP), expert commissioners can beappointed to support judges and provide support in arranging
the contested issues, taking charge of and assisting in reconciliation, conducting research and providing opinions on issues
requiring specialised knowledge, participating in the examination of evidence, etc. in their own specialised field.

3.6 Can defendants allege that the claimant’s actions
caused or contributed towards the damage?

4.4 Is evidence introduced solely by the parties or may
the court take evidence on its own initiative?

Comparative negligence is a defence available under the PLA
and the Civil Code (under Article 722 of the Civil Code)(see question 3.1). The courts have adopted a proportionality rule under which a portion of damages may be borneby the plaintiff if the defendant is able to prove his comparative negligence claim. The proportionality rule can go beyond
comparing the negligence of the tortfeasor and the victim toreflect the role of, e.g., family members partially at fault in the
resulting injury.

See question 4.11. Under Japanese law, there is no disclosure obligation or extensive discovery process in contrast with common
law jurisdictions. Evidence is generally introduced by the parties
through their own efforts. The court may order the submissionof documents and the commissioning of examinations whena motion is filed by a party, and it is difficult for that party tocollect documentary evidence from the other side that would beclearly necessary to prove their case (Article 132-4 of the CCP).

Product Liability 2024

Iwata Godo Law Offices

4.5 Is there a specific group or class action procedure for multiple claims? If so, please outline this. Is
the procedure “opt-in” or “opt-out”? Who can bring suchclaims, e.g. individuals and/or groups? Are such claims
commonly brought?

There are currently no US-style class actions in Japan. The Act
on Special Provisions of Civil Procedure for Collective Recovery
of Property Damage suffered by Consumers (Law No. 96 of
2013) introduced a special procedure known as the Japaneseclass action system. This system provides for a two-tier opt-in
procedure. During the first stage, a qualified consumer organisation files a lawsuit requesting the court to confirm the liabilityof a business operator (and exceptionally a business supervisor
or an employee thereof ) for a common obligation arising undera consumer contract on behalf of potential consumer claimants. If the action is confirmed, the quantum of damages will
be determined based on individual claims filed by consumers
having elected to opt in.
However, the scope of claims under this Act is limited tomonetary claims, and only covers claims arising from consumer
contracts and certain categories of property damage, including
claims for performance based on contractual obligations, forunjust enrichment, breach of contract, warranty against defects,
and claims for damages arising out of torts limited to torts under
the Civil Code, thereby excluding claim for torts under special
acts such as the PLA. A few extra claims giving rise to redress
were added with effect as of 1 October 2023 following a revisionof the Act: claims for damages based on the employer’s failure to
exercise reasonable care in the appointment of its employees orsupervision of its business under Article 715 of the Civil Code(vicarious liability); or claims for damages based on torts under
the Civil Code against an employee in case of gross negligenceor wilful misconduct. However, damage to property otherthan the subject matter of the consumer contract, lost profits,
personal injury, and except as indicated hereinafter pain andsuffering (compensated by a solatium), are expressly excluded by
the Act, and therefore a collective action may not be brought inthis context. As a result of the aforesaid revision, a solatium can
now be within the scope of recoverable damage when the main
facts serving as the basis for calculating damages are common
to a significant number of consumers (where the claim is madetogether with a claim for property damage or where harm iscaused intentionally).
There is also the so-called “appointed party” mechanism
under Article 30 of the CCP, which allows certain plaintiffs(or defendants) appointed by other claimants (or defendants)
to act on their behalf in pursuing (or defending) civil actions.
Appointments can be made when there are enough claimants/
defendants sharing a “common interest” (i.e., the main allegations or defences are common amongst them). The appointed
party can pursue the case on behalf of the appointing parties
and the result will be binding upon the appointing parties,
including a settlement.
4.6 Can claims be brought by a representative bodyon behalf of a number of claimants, e.g. by a consumer
association?

See question 4.3. There is no such mechanism under the PLA.

Product Liability 2024

4.7 May lawyers or representative bodies advertisefor claims and, if so, does this occur frequently? Does
advertising materially affect the number or type ofclaims brought in your jurisdiction?

As per question 4.3, the Japanese class action is useless in thiscontext (to reach out to potential claimants, it is more commonand “socially acceptable” to publicise claims through news
media coverage rather than through paid advertising; consumer
organisations often use victim emergency hotlines and freeconsultation sessions).
Advertising by lawyers is otherwise permissible but strictly
regulated under Regulation No. 44 of 24 March 2000 and related
guidelines. Advertising which is false, misleading, exaggerated,
illegal or that infringes rules of the national or local bar associations, or impairs the good repute of the profession, is prohibited.
There is no media restriction, but the wording, placement andmethods are limited (and even more stringently regulated when
dealing with ongoing matters).
4.8

How long does it normally take to get to trial?

The Act Concerning the Speeding up of Trials enacted in 2003
provides that legal proceedings must be closed within two
years. First instance proceedings last eight months on average,
but complex cases can take longer to resolve. Generally, thecourts schedule the initial hearing within one to one-and-a-halfmonths after the plaintiff has submitted a statement of claims,
and require the defendant to submit an answer around a week
before the hearing.
4.9 Can the court try preliminary issues, the resultsof which determine whether the remainder of the trial
should proceed? If it can, do such issues relate only
to matters of law or can they relate to issues of fact aswell, and if there is trial by jury, by whom are preliminary
issues decided?

Significant authority and powers to conduct the proceedings
are vested in the courts, and the judges may decide to close theproceedings and enter a judgment at any time. Unless the matteris straightforward, various procedures are available under the
CCP which are designed to facilitate pre-trial arrangements
relating to the points at issue ( preliminary proceedings, preparatory proceedings for oral argument and preparatory proceedings
by document, such as briefs).
4.10 What appeal options are available?

A “kouso” appeal can be filed with the appellate court against
a final judgment rendered in trial by a court of first instance (aDistrict Court or Summary Court). In principle, it is possible
to appeal judgments twice. The first appeal is for the ex post
facto review of judgments entered by the first instance courts,
and whether claims made in the first instance courts are right orwrong is not directly reviewed. In a sense, the first level appeal
is a continuation of the first instance trial. The parties may
introduce new evidence or new arguments not previously raised.
The appellate court (most often the High Court in a product

111

112

Japan

liability context) may conduct its own fact-finding, within thescope of the complaint, based on lower court materials or thosesubmitted to the appellate court.
A “joukoku” appeal against the final judgment rendered by alower court (against “kouso” judgments; i.e., rendered by a District
Court or the High Court) lies to the Supreme Court (or the High
Court) as a second appeal. A “joukoku” appeal is permitted
only when filed for a limited number of reasons (matters of law,
excluding questions of fact) such as a violation of the Constitution, serious misinterpretation of laws and regulations, lack ofsufficient legal basis, and inconsistency of reasoning. The period
during which a “kouso” or “joukoku” appeal can be filed is 14 days
from the date on which the judgment has been served.
4.11 Does the court appoint experts to assist it inconsidering technical issues and, if not, may the parties
present expert evidence? Are there any restrictions on
the nature or extent of that evidence?

The CCP contains a number of provisions governing theappointment and examination of court-appointed experts (Articles 212 to 218). These expert witnesses who have experienceand technical expertise can assist the court in understanding any
issue in dispute by providing explanations and dealing with factfinding. Expert opinions can be delivered in writing or verbally,and expert witnesses can be called to testify (and be challenged)
before the judges at the hearing. In the Japanese litigation practice, the parties often appoint their own experts, who can also
be summoned as witnesses to testify before the court. Theseexperts are more willing to testify in support of the party thathas hired them as opposed to court-appointed experts.
4.12 Are factual or expert witnesses required to present
themselves for pre-trial deposition and are witness
statements/expert reports exchanged prior to trial?

In principle, there are no restrictions on admissibility ofevidence. Any person or item, including hearsay evidence andexpert opinions, can be called or submitted as evidence, andjudges determine whether or not evidence is admissible at theirown discretion. Evidence that violates confession agreements
made between the parties or agreements restricting methods ofevidence gathering is not admissible. Examination of witnesses
is performed in open court after the parties have filed petitions
with the court and after the court has designated the witnesses
to be admitted and summoned them in order to be examinedon the examination date (Articles 180 and 181 of the CCP).
Although there is no law or ordinance regarding witness statements, written witness statements are often exchanged insteadof direct oral examination at the hearing.
4.13 What obligations to disclose documentary
evidence arise either before court proceedings arecommenced or as part of the pre-trial procedures?

In Japan, there are no disclosure obligations or an extensive
discovery process, in contrast with common law jurisdictions.
Documents submitted as evidence by the parties are typicallycollected by the parties through their own efforts. Accordingly,
if a manufacturer is not cooperating, critical evidence may beconcealed from the plaintiff, which is both relevant and admissible in a product liability case, including, but not limited to,
notice to the manufacturer of the existence of a defect in one ormore of its products, causation, the existence of a defect, and thefeasibility of safer alternate designs.
It is nonetheless possible to petition a court to issue anorder to submit documents after an action has commenced, by
providing valid reasons to compel the counterparty or a third
party, who has certain documents (listed in Article 220 of the
CCP) in his possession, to submit said documents (Article 221of the CCP). The person who is filing a motion must indicate(insofar as possible) the document, the identity of the person
keeping it, its significance, what needs to be proved with it, andthe reasons it is necessary.
The obligation to produce documents has been recognisedin the following situations: (i) documents to which a party has
referred for the purpose of presentation of assertion of proof;(ii) documents whose delivery or inspection a party submitting
evidence has the right to require while they are in the possessionof another person; (iii) documents showing legal relations which
support the rights or legal position of the person filing a motion,or showing a legal relation between the person filing a motion
and the holder of the documents; or (iv) documents that are notexcluded. Excluded documents include documents exclusively
prepared for use by their possessor and documents that containconfidential technical or professional information (there are a
few other exceptions listed under the CCP).
Before filing an action, if the (future) plaintiff has given
advance notice of the filing to the (future) defendant, the plaintiff or the recipient of the notice may, within four months of thedate of the notice, make inquiries to the other party on mattersnecessary to substantiate his allegations or collect evidence(Article 132-2 of the CCP). In addition, the court may orderthe submission of documents and the commissioning of examinations before a motion is filed by a party when it is difficult
for a party to collect documentary evidence from the other sidethat would be clearly necessary to prove his case (Article 132-4).
4.14 Are alternative methods of dispute resolution
required to be pursued first or available as an alternative
to litigation, e.g. mediation, arbitration?

There is no obligation to pursue alternatives to litigation. Japanese people and corporates typically prefer amicable settlementof disputes through negotiation over court litigation. Eventhen, a negotiated settlement (wakai ) can be made at any time
before or during the court proceedings.
ADR is available on a voluntary basis in the form of civil
mediation under the Law Concerning the Promotion of the Useof Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures (the ADR Law).
The ADR Law has introduced an accreditation system (although
not mandatory) for private dispute resolution services. If theparties can reach an agreement, this agreement is put on recordby the court and becomes enforceable in the same manner asa final judgment. Civil mediation procedures are simple andcost-effective (costs are fixed) and proceedings are confidential.
Civil litigants can also agree to refer their dispute to civil
conciliation (chotei ) under the Civil Conciliation Law (CCL).
Conciliation under the CCL is conducted by a conciliationcommittee composed of one judge and two or more civil conciliation commissioners appointed from a group of knowledgeable
and experienced citizens. The committee assists the parties infinding an amicable settlement and usually submits a settlement
plan to the parties. If the parties can reach an agreement, thisagreement is put on record by the court and has the same effect asa court judgment, and can be enforced accordingly. If the parties
are unable to reach an agreement, the plaintiff must file a suit
before the ordinary courts to pursue their claims.

Product Liability 2024

Iwata Godo Law Offices

Although commercial arbitration (chusai ) has not been used
actively as a means of resolving domestic disputes in Japan,
it has gradually become an important option, especially in aninternational context.
A number of industry-associated ( product-specific) tradeassociations have established permanent dispute resolution
organisations: the Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Associations of Japan; Japan Chemical Industry Association; Japan Heating Appliances Inspection Association;
Association for Electric Home Appliances; Japan Automobile
Manufacturers Association, Inc.; Center for Housing Renovation and Dispute Settlement Support; Consumer Product Safety
Association (in charge of the SG-Mark), which established theConsumer Product PL Center; Japan General Merchandise
Promotion Center; Japan Cosmetic Industry Association; Fire
Equipment and Safety Center of Japan; Japan Toy Association;
Japan Paint Manufacturers Association; and Japan Construction
Material & Housing Equipment Industries Federation.
4.15 In what factual circumstances can persons that are
not domiciled in your jurisdiction be brought within thejurisdiction of your courts either as a defendant or as aclaimant?

The CCP lays down international jurisdiction rules applicable tolitigation in the Japanese courts without expressly referring to
product liability claims. According to the prevailing view, they
are classified and treated as tortious claims.
Pursuant to the CCP general forum rules, a claimant may initiate
legal proceedings based on tortious liability or product liability
before the Japanese courts against any manufacturer whose principal place of business or business office is located in Japan. Under
special forum rules, a claimant can generally file a lawsuit in Japanagainst the manufacturer if the tortious act has occurred in Japan,
even if the manufacturer has no office in this country. A tortious
act is deemed to happen where the tortious act was committed(including the place where the product was manufactured) or
where the results occurred (unless the occurrence in Japan of theresults of a wrongful act committed abroad was unforeseeable).
4.16 May hearings take place or witness evidence begiven virtually via teleconferencing or other technicalmethods?

The CCP was amended in May 2022. This reform brings aboutsignificant changes to the rules governing civil court procedures in Japan, which had been strongly criticised as being
outdated and out of pace with the speedy digitalisation of Japanese society. The amendments have, and will, come into force inseveral stages spread over time, within a period ending in 2026.
Significant changes will be implemented. Provided the service
recipient consents in advance, e-service can take place via ane-mail address. Service will in principle be effected upon therecipient’s viewing, downloading, or after one week has elapsed
after the date of dispatch of the notification (Articles 109-2 and
109-3 of the CCP). The e-filing of an action and the submission of briefs via the internet will be possible (Article 132-10 of
the CCP). As not everybody has the necessary computer skills tohandle online procedures, and to avoid hampering access to judicial services through technological barriers, the use of the internet
for civil court proceedings remains optional. Attorneys are nonetheless obliged to use e-submission (Article 132-11 of the CCP).
Under a new e-court procedural system, the parties canparticipate in oral argument proceedings through video conference systems (Article 87-2 of the CCP). Before the revision, one
Product Liability 2024

party had to appear in court for preparatory proceedings if theother party was participating via video conference.
Electronic documents submitted to the court will be kept in
the court’s servers (Articles 132-12 and 132-13 of the CCP), andrecords will be accessible to anyone able to access the server(Article 91-2 of the CCP).

52

Time Limits

5.1 Are there any time limits on bringing or issuingproceedings?

Yes, there are time limits.
5.2 If so, please explain what these are. Do they varydepending on whether the liability is fault based or
strict? Does the age or condition of the claimant affectthe calculation of any time limits and does the court
have a discretion to disapply time limits?

(A) Limitation periods for bringing a claim under the
PLA and based on tort
Under the PLA, the right to seek damages based on
product liability is extinguished by prescription if:■ The victim or his legal representatives do not exercise such right within three years (five years in casesof damage due to bodily harm or death) from thetime they became aware of the damage and identified the party liable for the damages (the responsible
manufacturer).
■ The victim or his legal representatives do not exercise
such right within 10 years from the time of the deliveryof the product by the manufacturer.
In the event that damage or injuries are caused bysubstances which become harmful to human health after
accumulating in the body, or where the symptoms linked
to damage or injuries only appear after the passage of time,claims become time-barred after 10 years from the time ofoccurrence of the damage.
Claims brought under Article 709 of the Civil Codefollow a similar prescription pattern of three years and20 years, respectively.
Under Article 724 of the Civil Code, the right to demandcompensation for damages in tort is extinguished byprescription if it is not exercised by the victim or his legal
representative within three years (five years in case of bodily
harm or death under Article 724-2) from the time when hebecame aware of the damage and identified the perpetrator.
The same applies if it is not exercised by the victim or his
legal representative within 20 years from the time when thetort was committed.
Notwithstanding the above rules, a court may still decide
to set aside the statute of limitations in the interest ofjustice in cases of fraud or concealment of evidence.
(B) Limitation periods for bringing a claim for breachof contract
Under Article 166 of the Civil Code, the right to demandcompensation for damage based on liability for fault andliability for defects expires if it is not exercised by thevictim or his legal representative within five years from thetime when he became aware that he could claim damages
in relation thereto. The same applies if it is not exercisedby the victim or his legal representative within 10 years (20years in case of damage due to bodily harm or death under
Article 167) from the time when he could claim damages.
With respect to defects, unless the sale and purchase contract

113

114

Japan

provides otherwise, the buyer must give notice of the defectwithin one year from the time it becomes aware of the defect(Article 566 of the Civil Code). This shall not apply where
the seller had knowledge of the defect or had no knowledgeof the defect due to his or her gross negligence.
In a transaction between merchants, unless the sale andpurchase contract provides otherwise, the buyer may notbring a claim against the seller for a defect that is not immediately obvious unless he gives notice of the defect to theseller within six months of receipt of the goods. The buyer
may not pursue remedies against the seller for other defects
unless the buyer notifies the seller of the defect immediately
after receiving the goods (Article 526 of the Commercial
Code). This shall not apply where the seller had knowledgeof the defect.
5.3 To what extent, if at all, do issues of concealment
or fraud affect the running of any time limit?

In cases of concealment of evidence or fraud by the manufacturer, the court can set aside the statute of limitations in theinterest of justice.

62

Remedies

6.1 What remedies are available, e.g. monetarycompensation, injunctive/declaratory relief?

Only monetary compensation is available as a remedy under the
PLA and the Civil Code for claims brought under Articles 3
and 709, respectively. Damages can be awarded for monetaryand non-monetary damage.
Under the PLA, the manufacturer is liable for damage andinjuries to the life, limbs or property of the victim. The manufacturer is not liable when the damage only occurs to the productitself. In addition to physical injuries, compensation for mental
pain and suffering resulting from the injury caused by the defective product can be recoverable, as well as medical expenses andlost wages. Similar remedies are available under the Civil Code.
Monetary damages encompass both actual loss and anticipatedprofits. The scope of damages permitted for breaches of civil
obligations is set out under Article 416 of the Civil Code andcovers losses that would normally arise from non-performance,plus losses arising from special circumstances that parties had
foreseen or should have foreseen.
A buyer can ask a court to rescind the sale and purchase
contract and demand compensation for damages if there is a
defect in the product (Articles 415, 541, 542 and 564 of the Civil
Code) or otherwise a breach of contract, (Articles 415, 541, 542,
562, 563, 564, 566, and 570 of the Civil Code) (as explained above,
this more generally involves a lack of conformity with respect todescription, quality and quantity which, conceptually, includes a
defect). If the contract cannot be rescinded, the buyer may claim
compensation for damages. The plaintiff does not have to provethe manufacturer’s or seller’s negligence or intent. In addition,although only monetary compensation is available as a remedy
under the Civil Code, the buyer can ask the seller to repair thedefective goods or provide a substitute for the goods or to reduce
the price of the defective goods as an alternative to rescinding
the sale and purchase contract and making a compensation claimin the case of non-conforming products (Articles 562 and 563).
Orders to void contracts entered into with consumers, as well as
prospective orders to prevent unlawful solicitations for new business, can also be applied for under the CCA.

6.2 What types of damage are recoverable, e.g.
damage to the product itself, bodily injury, mental
damage, damage to property?

See question 6.1.
6.3 Can damages be recovered in respect of the cost of
medical monitoring (e.g. covering the cost of investigations or tests) in circumstances where the product has
not yet malfunctioned and caused injury, but it may do
so in future?

No, recovery is not possible in this case.
6.4 Are punitive damages recoverable? If so, are there
any restrictions?

Punitive or treble damages are not available as a remedy underJapanese law.
6.5 Is there a maximum limit on the damages recoverable from one manufacturer, e.g. for a series of claims
arising from one incident or accident?

There is no cap on the damages recoverable.
6.6 Do special rules apply to the settlement of claims/
proceedings, e.g. is court approval required for thesettlement of group/class actions, or claims by infants,
or otherwise?

There are no special rules.
6.7 Can Government authorities concerned with healthand social security matters claim from any damages
awarded or settlements paid to the claimant without
admission of liability reimbursement of treatment
costs, unemployment benefits or other costs paid by theauthorities to the claimant in respect of the injury allegedly caused by the product? If so, who has responsibility
for the repayment of such sums?

Japanese Government authorities (e.g., the Japan Pension
Service, etc.) have no right to claim any part of the compensation received by the claimant.

72

Costs / Funding

7.1 Can the successful party recover: (a) court fees orother incidental expenses; and (b) their own legal costsof bringing the proceedings, from the losing party?

The losing party generally bears the litigation expenses (court
costs such as filing fees, fees paid to witnesses and interpreters
and the travel expenses paid to the aforesaid and the prevailingparty, document preparation fees, etc.). For other costs, in theabsence of an attorney fees clause, the general rule applies that
litigation costs are borne by the party incurring the expense,
even if they prevail in the dispute. In a tortious liability context,
the court may still award a (usually small) part of the prevailingparty’s attorneys’ fees as part of the damages when there is areasonable causal relationship between a tort and the attorneys’
fees (but will usually limit the recovery of fees to a maximum of
10% of the recoverable damages).
Product Liability 2024

Iwata Godo Law Offices

7.2

Is public funding, e.g. legal aid, available?

The Japan Legal Support Center, an independent public institution, provides civil legal aid services, including free legal consultations and loans for attorneys’ fees, for people who require
the assistance of legal experts but who for economic reasons
are unable to pay for attorneys’ fees and court costs. Criminal
matters are excluded.
7.3 If so, are there any restrictions on the availability of
public funding?

To obtain public funding, the applicant must have financial
resources below a certain amount, have some reasonable chance of
success, and pursue aims consistent with the purposes of legal aid.
7.4 Is funding allowed through conditional or contingency fees and, if so, on what conditions?

Attorneys’ fees may be freely agreed upon between attorneys
and clients, and lawyers are allowed to charge part of their feeson a contingency basis under the Bar Association rules. Manylaw firms continue to determine their fees based on a combination of retainer fees and success fees listed in the now repealed
legal fee table of the Japanese Federation of Bar Associations.
7.5 Is third party funding of claims permitted and, if so,on what basis may funding be provided?

Third party funding is not prohibited per se, although there arevery few court precedents on this issue. The assignment ofclaims or causes of action is generally permitted but the entrustment of a claim for litigation purposes is prohibited under the
Trust Act (Law No. 108).
7.6 In advance of the case proceeding to trial, does thecourt exercise any control over the costs to be incurredby the parties so that they are proportionate to the valueof the claim?

The court generally does not exercise any control regarding thecost of proceedings or proportionality.

82

Updates

8.1 Please outline the approach taken to date by the
courts in your jurisdiction in relation to product liability
for new technologies such as artificial intelligence,machine learning, and robotics, and identify the ways inwhich this approach differs (if at all) from the approachtaken with other products.

Manufacturers (see definition in question 1.3) can be liable fordamage caused by a defect in a product under the PLA and if

Product Liability 2024

new technologies such as AI are defective, i.e., lack the safety
they should ordinarily provide, the AI manufacturer may beliable under the PLA. In this regard, the PLA does not provide
for specific procedures. Therefore, the approach taken in relation to product liability resulting from the use of new technologies is no different from that taken with other products. No
clear view and practice have been established yet as to when
AI should be regarded as lacking the safety it should ordinarily
provide, and the debate on this topic, and on the specific rules
and principles to apply in the future, goes on.
8.2 If relevant for your jurisdiction, what impact do you
anticipate as a result of the revised disclosure requirements under the proposed new EU Product Liability
Directive?

The EU directive will not be part of Japanese legislation. Under
the directive, the manufacturer of the product or a component
which has caused the product’s defect is primarily liable. If
the manufacturer is located outside the EU, the importer or its
authorised representative may be held liable. A Japanese manufacturer may be impacted by the directive incorporated by EU
countries into their national legislation and agree to comply withdisclosure obligations thereunder.
8.3 Please identify any other significant new cases,
trends and developments in Product Liability Law in yourjurisdiction.

Although the number of court cases has not increased dramatically, the PLA has helped to establish a more level playing field
for plaintiffs and victims of product liability accidents. The
development of product liability insurance might be one of thereasons for this. Another reason might be the Japanese legal
system itself, which is largely based on the German and French
civil law models and lacks the main ingredients of a robust
plaintiff-driven practice compared with what is available in
the US, i.e., jury trials, punitive damages, and contingency fee
agreements. Severe limitations on pre-trial discovery, highattorneys’ fees, costly court filing fees and protracted trials
have curbed the expansion of product liability litigation.
The Japanese “class action” system does not offer attractive options in this context. In addition, many manufacturers
have been quick to settle complaints and claims with individual
consumers rather than risk bad publicity and litigation. Productrecalls have nonetheless increased in number and publicity.
Another lasting consequence of the PLA has been the manufacturers’ emphasis on warnings and instructions across all industries. Labelling and marking requirements have also become
stricter in many industries.

115

116

Japan

Shinya Tago is a Japanese attorney-at-law, admitted to the New York State Bar Association, and is the Managing Partner of Iwata Godo. His
practice includes: general commercial litigation; securities litigation; shareholder derivative litigation; arbitration (domestic and international),
conciliation and mediation; and tort claims (including product liability disputes). Shinya is also a professor at the Hitotsubashi University
Law School.
Iwata Godo Law Offices
Marunouchi Building, 15th Floor
2-4-1 Marunouchi, Chiyoda-ku
Tokyo 100-6315
Japan

Tel:
Email:
LinkedIn:+81 3 3214 6205
stago@iwatagodo.com
www.linkedin.com/in/shinya-tago-764b16197

Landry Guesdon is a Registered Foreign Attorney (Tokyo Bar) and Avocat (Paris Bar), and is a member of the International Practice Committeeof Iwata Godo. Based in Japan since 1997 and with more than 20 years’ service in a Magic Circle firm, Landry has extensive experience inmergers & acquisitions, joint ventures and general corporate matters and antitrust spanning numerous industries (pharmaceuticals andmedical devices, cosmetics, defence and aerospace, food and agriculture, consumer and retail, general industrial, energy and utilities).
Landry gained a B.A. in Law from the University of Kent in Canterbury and an LL.M. from the University of Paris.
Iwata Godo Law Offices
Marunouchi Building, 15th Floor
2-4-1 Marunouchi, Chiyoda-ku

Tel:
Email:
LinkedIn:+81 3 3214 6205
lguesdon@iwatagodo.com
www.linkedin.com/in/landry-guesdon-67b071104

Tokyo 100-6315
Japan

Kazuto Anzai is a Japanese attorney-at-law and an Associate at Iwata Godo. His practice mainly focuses on dispute resolution and corporate
and commercial law. His diverse dispute resolution practice includes commercial disputes between companies, product liability disputes andinternational arbitration. Kazuto graduated from Keio University (LL.B.).
Iwata Godo Law Offices
Marunouchi Building, 15th Floor
2-4-1 Marunouchi, Chiyoda-ku
Tokyo 100-6315
Japan

Tel:
Email:
URL:+81 3 3214 6205
kazuto.anzai@iwatagodo.com
www.iwatagodo.com/english/lawyers/anzai_kazuto.html

Iwata Godo is one of Japan’s premier and oldest law firms. It wasestablished in 1902 as one of the first business law firms by Chuzo Iwata,
an attorney-at-law who subsequently held various positions, including
serving as Minister of Justice and president of the Japan Federation of Bar
Associations. It is a full-service firm with around 100 attorneys and each ofits practice areas is highly regarded. The firm’s litigation practice is among
the most prominent and accomplished in Japan and the practice handles
a broad range of disputes in all sectors. Our product liability attorneys havetaken on challenging cases and achieved excellent results with claims forcompensation relating to a broad range of defective products.
www.iwatagodo.com/english

Product Liability 2024

The International Comparative Legal Guide (ICLG) series brings
key cross-border insights to legal practitioners worldwide,
covering 58 practice areas.
•

Product Liability 2024 features three expert analysis
chapters and 17 Q&A jurisdiction chapters covering
key issues, including:• Liability Systems• Causation• Defences and Estoppel• Procedure• Time Limits• Remedies• Costs / Funding• Updates

The International Comparative Legal Guides are published by: