Product Liability 2020
A practical cross-border insight into product liability work

18th Edition

Featuring contributions from:
Addleshaw Goddard LLP

Clayton Utz

Legaltree

Advokatfirman Glimstedt

Faus & Moliner Abogados

LR LEX Avvocati Associati

Allen & Gledhill LLP

Harris Kyriakides LLC

Pinheiro Neto Advogados

Arnold & Porter

Herbert Smith Freehills LLP

Rahmat Lim & Partners

AZB & Partners

Iwata Godo Law Offices

Sidley Austin LLP

Bae, Kim & Lee LLC

Kellerhals Carrard

Soemadipradja & Taher

Bahas, Gramatidis & Partners

Latham & Watkins LLP

Squire Patton Boggs

BLD Bach Langheid Dallmayr

Lee and Li, Attorneys-at-Law

TURUNÇ

Table of Contents

Expert Chapters1

Update on the EU Product Liability Directive
Adela Williams & Tom Fox, Arnold & Porter

7

U.S. Product Liability Law: Recent Developments, Trends, and Future Outlook
Daniel A. Spira & Teri H. Peeples, Sidley Austin LLP

14Criminal Liability for Defective Products
Howard Watson & David Bennett, Herbert Smith Freehills LLP

21

Medicinal Cannabis and CBD Products – Navigating the UK Regulatory LandscapeLouisa Caswell, Mark Chesher & Cécile Burgess, Addleshaw Goddard LLP

Q&A Chapters
26
36

43

Australia
Clayton Utz: Colin Loveday & Andrew Morrison

119

BrazilPinheiro Neto Advogados: Sérgio Pinheiro Marçal &Laura Beatriz de Souza Morganti

127

CyprusHarris Kyriakides LLC: Ioanna Leonidou & Charis
Andreou

136

50

England & Wales
Arnold & Porter: Adela Williams & Tom Fox

64

FranceSquire Patton Boggs: Carole Sportes & Valérie Ravit

72

79
87

96

103

109

144

Germany
BLD Bach Langheid Dallmayr: Dr. Martin Alexander &Sarah Cloth

155

GreeceBahas, Gramatidis & Partners: Dimitris Emvalomenos

165

India
AZB & Partners: Vivek Bajaj, Kaavya Raghavan &Sherien Kaul

172

Indonesia
Soemadipradja & Taher: Romi Emirat, Verry Iskandar,
Aris Budi Prasetiyo & Oene Marseille

180

Italy
LR LEX Avvocati Associati: Giuseppe Francesco
Bonacci & Edoardo Tosetto

189

Japan
Iwata Godo Law Offices: Shinya Tago, Landry
Guesdon & Kohei Yamada

195

Korea
Bae, Kim & Lee LLC: Tony Dongwook Kang &Yongman Bae
Malaysia
Rahmat Lim & Partners: Karen Foong Yee Ling &Kwong Chiew EeNetherlands
Legaltree: Antoinette Collignon-Smit Sibinga &Carolien van Weering
Singapore
Allen & Gledhill LLP: Dr. Stanley Lai, SC & Amanda
Soon
Spain
Faus & Moliner Abogados: Xavier Moliner & Juan
Martínez
SwedenAdvokatfirman Glimstedt: Finn Stenström
Switzerland
Kellerhals Carrard: Dr. Claudia Götz Staehelin & Nina
StuderTaiwan
Lee and Li, Attorneys-at-Law: Patrick Marros Chu &David Tien
TurkeyTURUNÇ: Naz Esen & Beste Yıldızili Ergül
USA
Latham & Watkins LLP: Gwyn Williams & Christine
RolphChapter 15

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 toseek compensation for damages caused by a defective product.
The PLA covers movable property which is manufactured orprocessed (therefore excluding real estate, electricity or agricultural products). If a defective product causes any damage tothe buyer’s life, body or property (excluding the product itself),
the buyer can bring a 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 to demonstrate that the product was defective, and that the defect caused
the injuries. A product can be deemed defective if it lacks thelevel of safety which it should normally possess, taking into
account its nature and characteristics, its ordinarily foreseeable
uses, state of the art (scientific or technical knowledge at thetime 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 product may stillbring a tort claim under the Civil Code. An extensive reformof the Civil Code of 1896 has taken place to produce a morecomprehensive and user-friendly version with general principles of law derived from court precedents turned into statute.
Amendments adopted in 2017 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 anotherwill be liable for any resulting damage. In contrast with the PLA,
the plaintiff must prove the defendant’s intent or negligence, andthe burden of proof is subject to a high standard. Causes of action
under Article 709 include fraud and misrepresentation.
Product Liability 2020
© Published and reproduced with kind permission by Global Legal Group Ltd, London

109

Kohei Yamada

C. The Consumer Contract Act (Law No. 61 of 2000) (CCA)
protects consumers in their 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 damages arisingfrom the business operator’s fault or which allow the business operator to determine whether it should bear any
liability.
■
Clauses which partially exempt a business operator fromliability for damages arising from the business operator’s
fault (limited to default arising due to an intentional act orgross negligence on the part of the business operator, its
representatives or employees) or which allow the business
operator to determine the liability from which it should bepartially exempted.
■
Clauses which totally exempt a business operator fromliability for damages to a consumer arising from a tort
committed during the business operator’s performance ofa consumer contract or which allow the business operator
to determine whether it should bear any liability.
■
Clauses which partially exempt a business operator fromliability for damages to a consumer arising from a tort
(limited to cases in which the tort arises due to an intentional act by, or the gross negligence of, the business operator, its representatives or employees) committed during
the business operator’s performance of a consumer
contract or which allow the business operator to determine
the liability from which it should be partially exempted.
■
If a consumer contract is a contract for value, and there is alatent defect in the subject matter of the consumer contract(including a contract for services), clauses which totally
exempt a business operator from any liability to compensate a consumer for damages caused by such defect or
allow the business operator to determine whether it shouldbear any liability, except in the event that:■ the consumer contract provides that the business operator is liable to deliver substitute products without thedefect or to repair the products when there is a latent
defect; 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

110

Japan

by the business operator, or between the business
operator and another business operator for the benefitof the consumer, whereunder the other business operator will compensate for all or part of the damage
caused by a defect, deliver substitute products without
defects or repair the defective products.
Although the CCA limits the extent to which the seller of a
product may disclaim warranties relating to a product or restrict
the remedies available to a buyer injured by a product sold by theseller, it does not offer any specific cause 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) can bringa product liability claim against a seller who is his counterparty
in a sale and purchase contract, either for breach of contract
or breach of implied statutory warranties under the Civil Code,provided that there is a direct contractual relationship between
the injured party and the seller of the defective product.
Nowadays, in most consumer transactions, the end-user/
buyer does not have a 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 be otherlegal 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 a price reduction under Article 563. For ease of reference, we will refer todefects (as part of the non-conformity concept).
Article 415 of the Civil Code addresses liability for incomplete
performance of obligations, while Article 562, Article 563 andArticle 564 govern warranties against defects. Also relevant inthis context is Article 526 of the Commercial Code, an equivalent provision to Article 566 of the Civil Code, which applies todefects in transactions between business operators.
The parties to a contract can be released entirely or partially fromtheir 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 andlimitations are strictly limited by the CCA with respect to contracts
between consumers and business operators. Notwithstanding any
special agreement excluding statutory warranties, a seller’s liability
would not be excluded in case of fraud or concealment of known
facts (Article 572 of the Civil Code).
1.2 Does the state operate any schemes ofcompensation for particular products?

The Government operates special compensation schemes forpharmaceuticals and products deemed to have specific risks.
One scheme entirely funded by the Government and established under the Preventive Inoculation Law (Law No. 68
of 1948) compensates victims of injuries caused by inoculations. Another scheme, industry-funded and administered by
the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA)
under the Act on Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices (Law
No. 192 of 2002) provides compensation covering the medical

and funeral expenses of individuals and their families in theevent of illness, disability or death caused by the side effects ofpharmaceuticals.
Another 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 with the 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 iscapped at 100 million yen per person and depends on the seriousness of the injury and the cause 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 defectin 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 inJapan, including the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), theElectrical Appliances and Materials Safety Act, the Gas Business
Act, the Act on the Securing of Safety and the Optimisation ofTransaction of Liquefied Petroleum Gas, the Household Goods
Quality Labelling Act, the Act on the Control of Household
Product Liability 2020

© Published and reproduced with kind permission by Global Legal Group Ltd, London

Iwata Godo Law Offices

Goods Containing Harmful Substances, the Food Sanitation
Act, the Poisonous and Deleterious Substances Control Act, theIndustrial Standardisation Act ( JIS Mark Labelling Act) and soon. In addition, separate laws apply to ships, road transport
vehicles, cosmetics, quasi-drugs, pharmaceutical products andmedical equipment. These types of product 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 (forthe majority of consumer products, the Minister with regulatory oversight is the Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry)
to investigate complaints relating to particular products, compel
manufacturers and importers to disclose information relating toallegedly unsafe products, and order product recalls or other remedial actions if the Minister finds it necessary to prevent the occurrence or decrease the risk of a danger. Under the CPSA, a person
engaging in the manufacture or import of consumer products islegally obligated to investigate the cause of product accidents, andif he finds it necessary to prevent the occurrence and decrease therisk of a danger, he must endeavour to recall said consumer products or otherwise take preventive action (Article 38, Paragraph 1).
In the event 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 Minister mayorder the person engaging in the manufacture or import 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 ofdefective 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 isfound that the product sold was defective. Proof of the manufacturer’s fault/negligence or wilful misconduct is not required
to seek monetary compensation. A plaintiff seeking monetarydamages under the PLA must prove that the manufacturer’s
product is defective and that the defect has caused the plaintiff’s injuries or damage. In practice, the plaintiff must at least
prove that:
Product Liability 2020
© Published and reproduced with kind permission by Global Legal Group Ltd, London■■

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 ordamaged 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 breached aduty 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 or interest.
■
The defendant’s intention or negligence in relation to thebreach.
■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 ofa defective product in breach of an express or implied warranty
and that such breach has caused some damage 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 masstorts cases such as environmental pollution, where causation
has been almost presumed in light of circumstances (namely
serious disease and contamination and inexperienced victims at
a loss to show causation), thereby shifting the burden of proof
onto the defendant. The Supreme Court sought to define thedegree of proof necessary for causation in Miura et al. v. Japanet al., Supreme Court, 29-9 MINSHU 1417, 24 October 1975, a
medical malpractice case, indicating 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 beestablished which of several possible producers
manufactured the defective product? Does any form ofmarket-share liability apply?

There is no market-share liability in Japan and one or more

111

112

Japan

specific manufacturers 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 theshare of damages he is otherwise required to bear is entitled toseek indemnification from 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 for theparticular 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
your law pursuant to which the supply of information
to the learned intermediary discharges the duty owed
by the manufacturer to the ultimate consumer to makeavailable 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 the liability toanother 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 negligencecan also be claimed in relation to product defect claims brought
under the PLA where the manner in which the plaintiff has
handled, used or stored the product can be deemed to constituteunforeseeable misuse.
Statute of limitations may also provide a valid defence under
Article 5 of the PLA and Article 724 of the Civil Code if theclaim is time-barred and brought beyond the applicable three(or, where applicable, five-) or 10/20-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 the state ofknowledge at the time of delivery was such that the 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 has compliedwith the design specifications and instructions given by
the final product manufacturer, and he is not negligent
with respect to the occurrence of the defect. The component manufacturer (e.g., a subcontractor) must prove thathe could not have foreseen or prevented the defect in the
product integrated into the final products.
B. For breach of contract claims, customary defences areavailable. 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 areconcurrent (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 failing tospot 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 to relyon:■Comparative negligence where the plaintiff can be shownto have assumed a certain level of risks, and the plaintiff’s
own negligence contributed to the injury. The Japanesecourts have adopted a comparative negligence approachas opposed to strict contributory negligence, where eachparty’s negligence for a given injury is considered by thejudge when determining damages.
■
An agreement between the parties limiting compensation(for instance, the provision of liquidated damages) andliability.
■
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 ofscientific 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.
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?

Compliance with applicable laws and regulations is an importantfactor in determining whether a product is defective. However,compliance or the failure to comply with applicable laws and regulations is not decisive and does not per se rule out or trigger liability.
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
Product Liability 2020

© Published and reproduced with kind permission by Global Legal Group Ltd, London

Iwata Godo Law Offices

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 was dueto the actions of a third party and seek a contribution orindemnity towards any damages payable to the claimant,
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”) ofactions pending between two parties while actions are pending
between a third party and either party is allowed as long as thefollowing requirements are satisfied: (i) the existence of a nexus
and commonality between claims sufficient to justify a common
judgment (Article 38 of the CCP); and (ii) the handling of claims
through similar proceedings or the satisfaction of other objective consolidation requirements (Article 136 of the CCP). Basedon this procedural option, a defendant can initiate proceedings
against such third party and then seek to combine 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, based on tort
or breach of contract (see question 5.2).
3.6 Can defendants allege that the claimant’s actions
caused or contributed towards the damage?

Comparative negligence is a defence available under the PLA
and the Civil Code (under Article 722 of the Civil Code) (seequestion 3.1). To mitigate the damages, a defendant may haveto pay; the courts have adopted a proportionality rule underwhich a portion of damages may be borne by 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 to reflect the role of, e.g.,family members partially at fault in the resulting injury.

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 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.
Product Liability 2020
© Published and reproduced with kind permission by Global Legal Group Ltd, London

4.3 Is there a specific group or class action procedure
for multiple claims? If so, please outline this. Is theprocedure ‘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 Japanese class 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 toconfirm the liability of a business operator for a common obligation arising under a consumer contract on behalf of potential
consumer claimants. If the action is confirmed, the quantumof damages will be determined based on individual claims filed
by consumers having elected to opt in. However, the scope ofclaims under this Act is limited and only covers claims arisingfrom consumer contracts and to certain categories of property
damage, including claims for performance based on contractual
obligations, for unjust enrichment, breach of contract, warranty
against defects, and claims for damages arising out of unlawful
acts. However, damage to property other than the subject
matter of the consumer contract, lost profits, personal injury,
and pain and suffering are expressly excluded by the Act.
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.
4.4 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.
4.5 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).

113

114

Japan

4.6

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 can 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 about a week
before the hearing.
4.7 Can the court try preliminary issues, the resultof 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 points at issue (preliminary proceedings, preparatory
proceedings for oral argument and preparatory proceedings by
document such as briefs).
4.8

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 productliability 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 a lower 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 misinterpretationof laws and regulations, lack of sufficient 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.
4.9 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 the appointment and examination of court-appointed experts (Articles 212
to 218). These expert witnesses who have experience and technical expertise can assist the court in understanding any issue
in dispute by providing explanations and in dealing with factfinding. Expert opinions can be delivered in writing or verballyand 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.
4.10 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 to admissibility inevidence. 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.
4.11 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 an order to submit documents afteran action has commenced by providing valid reasons to compel
the counterparty or a third party keeping certain documents,
listed in Article 220 of the CCP in his possession, to submit said
documents (Article 221 of the CCP). The person who is filinga motion must indicate (insofar as possible) the document, theidentity of the person keeping it, its significance, what needs tobe proved with it and the reasons why it is necessary. The obligation to produce documents has been recognised in the following
situations: (i) documents a party has referred to for the purposeof presentation of assertion of proof; (ii) documents that a party
submitting evidence has the right to require delivery or inspection of while in the possession of another person; (iii) documents showing legal relations which support the rights or legal
position of the person filing a motion or documents showing alegal relation between the person filing a motion and the holderof the documents; or (iv) documents that are not excluded.
Excluded documents include documents exclusively preparedfor use by their possessor and documents that contain confidential 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 filingto the (future) defendant, the plaintiff or the recipient of thenotice may, within four months of the date of the notice, makeinquiries to the other party on matters necessary to substantiate

Product Liability 2020
© Published and reproduced with kind permission by Global Legal Group Ltd, London

Iwata Godo Law Offices

his allegations or collect evidence (Article 132-2 of the CCP).
In addition, the court may order the 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 side that would be clearly necessary toprove his case (Article 132-4).
4.12 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 settlement of disputes through negotiation over court litigation.
Even then, 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 (notmandatory though) 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 (the CCL). Conciliation
under the CCL is conducted by a conciliation committee composedof one judge and two or more civil conciliation commissioners
appointed from a group of knowledgeable and experienced citizens.
The committee assists the parties in finding an amicable settlement andusually submits a settlement plan to the parties. If the parties can reachan agreement, this agreement is put on record by the court and has thesame effect as a court judgment and can be enforced accordingly. If theparties are unable to reach an agreement, the plaintiff must file a suit
before the ordinary courts to pursue their claims.
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 an international 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 ((incharge of the “SG” mark) which has established the Consumer
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.
4.13 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 Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) lays down international jurisdiction rules applicable to litigation in the Japanesecourts without expressly referring to product liability claims.
According to the prevailing view, they are classified and treatedas tortious claims.

Product Liability 2020
© Published and reproduced with kind permission by Global Legal Group Ltd, London

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 Japaneven 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 has been manufactured) or
where the results have occurred (unless the occurrence in Japan of
the results of a wrongful act committed abroad was unforeseeable).

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 andbased on tort.
Under the PLA, the right to seek damages based on productliability is extinguished by prescription if:■
The victim or his legal representatives do not exercise suchright within three years (five years in case of damage due
to bodily harm or death) from the time they became awareof the damage and identify the party liable for the damages(the responsible manufacturer).
■
The victim or his legal representatives do not exercise suchright within 10 years from the time of the delivery of the
product by the manufacturer.
In the event that damage or injuries are caused by substances
which become harmful to human health after accumulatingin the body, or where the symptoms linked to damage or injuries only appear after the passage of time, claims become timebarred after 10 years from the time of occurrence of the damage.
Claims brought under Article 709 of the Civil Code follow asimilar prescription pattern of three years and 20 years, respectively.
Under Article 724 of the Civil Code, the right to demandcompensation for damages in tort is extinguished by prescription if it is not exercised by the victim or his legal representative
within three years (five years in case of bodily harm or deathunder Article 724-2) from the time when he became aware of
the damage and identifies the perpetrator. The same applies if
it is not exercised by the victim or his legal representative within
20 years from the time when the tort has been committed.
Notwithstanding the above rules, a court may still decide to
set aside the statute of limitations in the interest of justice incases of fraud or concealment of evidence.
B. Limitation periods for bringing a claim for breach ofcontract.
Under Article 166 of the Civil Code, the right to demandcompensation for damages based on liability for fault andliability for defects expires if it is not exercised by the victim or
his legal representative within five years from the time when hebecame aware that he could claim damages in relation thereto.
The same applies if it is not exercised by the victim or his legal
representative within 10 years (20 years in case of damage due tobodily harm or death under Article 167) from the time when hecould claim damages.

115

116

Japan

With respect to defects, unless the sale and purchase contract
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 theseller had knowledge of the defect or had no knowledge of thedefect due to his or her gross negligence.
In a transaction between merchants, unless the sale andpurchase contract provides otherwise, the buyer may not bringa claim against the seller for a defect that is not immediately
obvious unless he gives notice of the defect to the seller 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 thegoods (Article 526 of the Commercial Code). This shall not
apply where the seller had knowledge of 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?

A. Only monetary compensation is available as a remedy under
the PLA and the Civil Code for claims brought under Article
3 and Article 709, respectively. Damages can be awarded formonetary and 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.
B. 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 (Article 415, Article 541, Article 542 andArticle 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, more generally lack of conformity
with respect to description, 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 prove the manufacturer’s or seller’s negligenceor intent. In addition, although only monetary compensation isavailable as a remedy under the Civil Code, the buyer can ask theseller to repair the defective 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 claim in the case of non-conforming products (Articles 562 and 563). Orders to void contracts enteredinto with consumers, as well as prospective orders to prevent
unlawful solicitations for new business, can also be applied forunder 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 thecost of medical monitoring (e.g. covering the cost ofinvestigations or tests) in circumstances where theproduct 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 ofclaims 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 paidby the authorities 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., 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; (b) their own legal costs ofbringing 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 thetravel expenses paid to the aforesaid and the prevailing party anddocument preparation fees, etc.). For other costs, in the absence ofan attorney fees clause, the general rule applies that litigation costs areborne by the party incurring the expense, even if they prevail in thedispute. The court may award a (usually small) part of the prevailingparty’s attorneys’ fees as part of the damages when there is a reasonable causal relationship between a tort and the attorneys’ fees.
Product Liability 2020

© Published and reproduced with kind permission by Global Legal Group Ltd, London

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 orcontingency 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 provide a summary of any new cases,
trends and developments in Product Liability Law in yourjurisdiction including how the courts are approaching
any issues arising in relation to new technologies andartificial intelligence.

Although the number of court cases has not increased dramatically, the PLA has helped to establish a more level playing field forplaintiffs and victims of product liability accidents. The development of PL insurance might be one of the reasons. 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 isavailable in the US: jury trials; punitive damages; and contingent
fee agreements. Severe limitations on pre-trial discovery, highattorneys’ fees, costly court filing fees and protracted trials havecurbed the expansion of PL litigation. The Japanese class action
Product Liability 2020
© Published and reproduced with kind permission by Global Legal Group Ltd, London

system is still at its infancy and does not offer attractive options inthis context. In addition, many manufacturers have been quick tosettle complaints and claims with individual consumers rather thanrisk bad publicity and litigation. Product recalls have nonethelessincreased in number and publicity. Another lasting consequence of
the PLA has been the manufacturers’ emphasis on warnings andinstructions across all industries. Labelling and marking requirements have also become stricter in many industries.
The Japanese Government and private sector are making hugeinvestments in artificial intelligence and new technologies as key
drivers of future competitiveness. Japan’s ambition is to lead thetransition from “industry 4.0” to “society 5.0”, in which all aspectsof society are transformed by new information technologies andsystems. The Government has issued general policies regarding theuse of AI and IoT, and further discussions focusing on legal issues
arising from the use of AI systems and machine learning. Some of
the challenges are conceptual, such as accountability, how to assign
legal responsibility when AI systems cause harm.
Case law is virtually non-existent, and the following rules
remain to be tested before the courts.
■
Civil liability issues. When AI causes damage to an AI
user or a third party, persons that can be held liable are
AI users and manufacturers (broadly interpreted). With
respect to AI users, the following issues may arise: should
AI be held liable in tort where it causes damage to a third
party; and what could be the AI user’s liability where AI
performs a contract on its own.
■
Tortious liability. If an AI user is found negligent withrespect to AI utilisation, the AI user will be liable fordamages (Article 709 of the Civil Code). The traditional
concept of negligence does not have to be revisited in thiscontext and the usual definition will apply. For AI users
to be negligent, they would need to be able to anticipate
the occurrence of specific results arising from AI actions.
However, AI systems may perform actions that are unforeseeable to their designers and operators. From this perspective, it is unlikely users will be deemed negligent (although
being aware of uncontrollable risks inherent in the black box
and still using AI could be negligence in itself). There may
still be circumstances under which AI users have a certain
duty of care over the actions of AI systems. At least at theearly stage of AI introduction, it would not be appropriate torely on AI systems entirely and AI users would be expected
to have minimum monitoring duties.
■
Liability of AI manufacturers. Manufacturers can beliable for damage caused by a defect in a product under the
PLA and if AI is defective, i.e., lacks the safety it should
ordinarily provide, the AI manufacturer may be liable
under the PLA. No clear view has been established yet
as to when AI should be regarded as lacking the safety it
should ordinarily provide and the debate goes on.
■
Contractual liability. In cases where AI systems perform
a contract (e.g., by placing automatic orders after checking
inventory levels in a warehouse). If AI makes a mistake, e.g.,
by purchasing unnecessary goods at an outrageous price,
should the AI user be liable under such a contract? When the
AI user entrusts AI with the execution of a contract, it canbe considered that the user expresses his intention to “enter
into a contract using AI” with the counterparty. Likewise,
the counterparty expresses his intention to “accept a contract
offer made by AI”. As there is a meeting of the minds between
the AI user and his counterparty, the contract is deemed duly
made between them. The contract is in principle valid andeffective even if a mistake is found in the contract offer madeby AI, because the intention of the AI user matches that of
the counterparty. A mistake by AI would only render thecontract void in exceptional circumstances.

117

118

Japan

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

Tel:
Email:
URL:+81 3 3214 6205
stago@iwatagodo.com
www.iwatagodo.com

Landry Guesdon is a Registered Foreign Attorney (Tokyo Bar) and Avocat (Paris Bar), member of the International Practice Committee of
Iwata Godo. In Japan since 1997 and with more than 20 years with a Magic Circle firm, Landry Guesdon has extensive experience in mergers
and acquisitions, joint ventures and general corporate matters and antitrust spanning numerous industries (pharmaceuticals and medical
devices, cosmetics, defence and aerospace, food and agriculture, consumer and retail, general industrials, energy and utilities). Landry
Guesdon has received a BA in law from the University of Kent in Canterbury and an LL.M. degree from the University of Paris.
Iwata Godo Law Offices
Marunouchi Bldg. 15th floor
2-4-1 Marunouchi, Chiyoda-ku
Tokyo 100-6315
Japan

Tel:
Email:
URL:+81 3 3214 6205
lguesdon@iwatagodo@com
www.iwatagodo.com

Kohei Yamada is a Japanese attorney at law and an associate at Iwata Godo. His practice focuses on M&A and corporate law. His diverse
corporate practice includes corporate governance and compliance, shareholders’ meetings (listed companies), and dispute resolution(including product liability related disputes). Kohei Yamada graduated from the University of Tokyo (LL.B. and J.D.).
Iwata Godo Law Offices
Marunouchi Bldg. 15th floor
2-4-1 Marunouchi, Chiyoda-ku
Tokyo 100-6315
Japan

Tel:
Email:
URL:+81 3 3214 6205
kyamada@iwatagodo.com
www.iwatagodo.com

Iwata Godo is one of Japan’s premier and oldest law firms. It was established 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 about 80 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

Product Liability 2020
© Published and reproduced with kind permission by Global Legal Group Ltd, London

Current titles in the ICLG series
Alternative Investment Funds

Digital Business

Oil & Gas Regulation

Anti-Money Laundering

Digital HealthOutsourcing

Aviation Finance & Leasing

Drug & Medical Device Litigation

Patents

Aviation Law

Employment & Labour Law

Pharmaceutical Advertising

Business Crime

Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

Private Client

Cartels & Leniency

Environment & Climate Change Law

Private Equity

Class & Group Actions

Family Law

Product Liability

Competition Litigation

FintechProject FinanceConstruction & Engineering Law

Foreign Direct Investment Regimes

Public Investment Funds

Consumer Protection

Franchise

Public Procurement

Copyright

Gambling

Real Estate

Corporate GovernanceInsurance & Reinsurance

Renewable Energy

Corporate Immigration

International Arbitration

Restructuring & Insolvency

Corporate Investigations

Investor-State Arbitration

Sanctions

Corporate Tax

Lending & Secured Finance

Securitisation

Cybersecurity

Litigation & Dispute Resolution

Shipping Law

Data Protection

Merger Control

Telecoms, Media & Internet

Derivatives

Mergers & Acquisitions

Trade Marks

Designs

Mining Law

Vertical Agreements and Dominant Firms@ICLG_GLG

The International Comparative Legal Guides are published by: