Court rules in favor of trucker killed while saving accident victims

Wednesday 17th September, 10:59 AM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

› Login to comment

Latest 15 of 53 Total Comments Show All

nigelboy at 02:30 PM JST - 17th September

It appears your arguing with your emotions, javnation. I made my point clear. The judge ruled "rescuing" is an expected conduct within truck driving profession. That's another whole can of worms, IMO. That's why I have an issue with this ruling.
presto345 at 03:31 PM JST - 17th September

Another can of worms? Seems there are a couple of people here who would take the seat of the judge and do the ruling. While we are at it, I take issue with he ‘‘interrupted his work at his own discretion’’ to save the women. That would mean every time he interrupted his work to do something that was not driving the truck or loading/unloading it, like taking a pee or something similar he would not be entitled to any compensation if he got involved in an accident during that time. What is it with these people who will deny citizens' basic rights? And why did it have to take 10 years. 10 years of insecurity for the widow and her children. Shame.
javnation at 04:14 PM JST - 17th September

nigelboy

Ha ha. Nothing emotional about it. I think that people are covered by workers comp, during their time at work, irrespective of that work being for the company or themselves. The only scenario where I think that should not be the case, is where the employee is doing something that is illegal or that shows malice towards the company.

Jav
sensei258 at 06:31 PM JST - 17th September

Isn't it required by law to "stop and render aide"? What would happen if somebody witnessed him just drive by and ignore the injured?
Nessie at 06:38 PM JST - 17th September

I'm still with Nigelboy, who is articulating an unpopular position with great eloquence and restraint.
presto345 at 07:13 PM JST - 17th September

Like I said before ,I'm all for giving the family the compensation but twisting/expanding the existing law isn't the way to go about it.

The layman calls it twisting/expanding. The judge sees that differently and sets a neat precedent: the law isn't there for the law but for the people.
martyman at 09:00 PM JST - 17th September

News stories like this is very sad to hear. From reading this post, it has been pending since 1998, I can't imagine the stress the wife has been going through all these years. I hope the driver of the other car has been paying his gomen money to the family. That would help them out a bit to pay with the families lost wages.

The government is basically programming all Japanese citizens to turn the other cheek from helping other people in distress. Especially during working hours, the fear factor of not being able to receive benefits because you were helping someone out. This is shameful. The precedence set is a step in the right direction to change the seemingly cold culture.
gonemad at 01:34 AM JST - 18th September

Nigelboy, the point is that you can't draw a clear borderline between what is work and what is not. From legal point "being at work" is usually defined in such a way that there are start and end times. In some countries, the work starts when you leave your home and end when you return to your home, in others this is related to your arrival/leave at place of work. Any time in between is regarded as being on work, as long as your actions can be reasonably expected in this situation. It's all a bit fuzzy, but it's impossible to be more precise. The same goes for the Japanese law, which is why the labor ministry referred to the term "at his own discretion".

Now the question comes down to whether helping people in an accident can be regarded as reasonably expected behaviour during your working time. Obviously the judge and most people here agree that this behaviour can be expected and that on top of that it must be especially expected from someone who drives professionally, as he may encounter this situation more frequently than other people.

I don't know the Japanese laws well, but in most countries I know you are even legally required to help, so that helping in an accident is in no way "at your own discretion".
nigelboy at 09:48 AM JST - 18th September

gonemad

Like I said, nobody is questioning whether the driver was at work at the time of the incident. The argument here is that in order for the plaintiffs to be awarded workers compensation, they had to prove that his actions were part of his job. Reasonable expectation? Sure. But such resonable conduct can extend to interpret as part of his job? I don't know about that. My contention, is that workers compensation should only cover those incidents that are directly work related. That's all.

And if you're referring to "duty to rescue" under wikipedia, there are restrictions in many countries such as limiting to just informing the authrorities or "that the person must not endanger her/his own life or that of others, while providing rescue."

According to some of the related articles to this incident, it appears that the driver tried to flip the car that was tipped to the side.
timtak at 10:37 AM JST - 18th September

nigel spot on. nessie doukan.

From reading some of the first posts you'd think that Japanese legal system is just stupid or evil, so I also have sympathy with those that say this case is "fuzzy" or a "can of worms."
Reicheru at 10:50 PM JST - 19th September

nigelboy and nessie:

The issue in this case was whether the injury occurred during the scope and course of employment. This man was hired to drive a vehicle on his employer's behalf. Encountering traffic accidents on the road is a foreseeable consequence of that occupation. If it was not for his job, this man would not have encountered people on the road who were in immediate need of his help, and subsequently died lending them aid. Rescuing the women trapped in the car and clearing the road of its wreckage were both equally reasonable courses of conduct in response to the accident, which was itself a natural incident in the line of this man's employment.

Any reasonable person familiar with the environment and circumstances leading up to this man's death would conclude that it resulted from exposure occasioned by the nature of his employment, and therefore arose out of that employment. The legal term for this in western countries is "causal connection." This is not a "moral" question as whether or not compensation applies is a matter of logic rather than feelings. The judge reaching this decision did not open a legal "can of worms" -- it is his job to interpret the law accordingly in cases like these.
nigelboy at 02:46 PM JST - 20th September

Reicheru

I beg to differ. After reading what he had tried to do, I must conclude that what he did was beyond what is necessarily required as "duty to rescue" under the common law since it's obvious that his action "did endanger her/his own life or that of others, while providing rescue. "

The problem here is that truck driving profession in most cases are first to witness and to offer help with these kind of traffic accidents. However, they are not qualified as much as rescue workers in regards to "rescuing the women trapped in the car and clearning the road of its wreckage". So there has got to be a distincition between what is construed as reasonable rescue attempt by a civilian/trucker driver.
Reicheru at 12:57 AM JST - 21st September

I beg to differ. After reading what he had tried to do, I must conclude that what he did was beyond what is necessarily required as "duty to rescue" under the common law [...]

There is no "duty to rescue" under common law.

[...] since it's obvious that his action "did endanger her/his own life or that of others, while providing rescue. "

The trucker's death was caused by another driver clipping him while he was attempting to move wreckage off the road. It is only "obvious" that this wreckage was a hazard and that removing it from the road was a reasonable action to take. The trucker did not take any action during or after the rescue that was unreasonable, wanton, or reckless so as to fit the definition of "endangerment."

The misconception here seems to be that the trucker's action of rescuing these women and removing wreckage from the road is what caused his death. However it was the presence of this wreckage on the road that actually caused the collision which resulted in his death. Any rational person would agree that removing the wreckage from the road was a reasonable course of action to take under the circumstances being an obvious hazard.

The crux of your argument seems to be that everyone, including the judge, looked at this case from beneath an emotional veil. But I have to suggest that you may be looking at the law a bit too literally. Fundamentally this is a question of social policy. What do we want people to do and how do we want them to act in these types of situations? Danger invites rescue and this man acted in a morally justified and reasonable manner considering the circumstances. Encountering accidents on the road is foreseeable in his line of work as a trucker, and it was his work that lead him to the scene of an accident where two women were in need of rescue. I think that the judge's decision was very much in line with western jurisprudence.
Nessie at 09:28 AM JST - 21st September

Fundamentally this is a question of social policy. What do we want people to do and how do we want them to act in these types of situations?

The question is what can we reasonably expect people to do. It's not a question of what we want.
nigelboy at 09:37 AM JST - 22nd September

The trucker's death was caused by another driver clipping him while he was attempting to move wreckage off the road.

By flipping the vehicle that was turned to the side? It's quite apparent that the action he took resulted in his own tragic fate therefore how could you claim that his action didn't "endager" his own life?