Product Safety Violations And Corporate Liability
1. Introduction: Product Safety and Corporate Liability in Japan
Product safety violations occur when companies manufacture, distribute, or sell goods that cause injury, death, or economic damage to consumers. Japan has strict laws to ensure product safety, including:
Relevant Laws
Consumer Product Safety Act (消費生活用製品安全法, 1973, amended later)
Companies must ensure that products are safe for normal use.
Minister can issue recalls for unsafe products.
Product Liability Law (製造物責任法, PL Law, 1995)
Manufacturers, importers, and sellers are strictly liable for damages caused by defective products.
Does not require proof of negligence—only defect and causal link to injury.
Civil Code (民法)
Tort liability (Article 709) applies if a defective product causes injury due to negligence.
Penal Code (刑法)
Criminal liability if violation of safety regulations leads to injury or death (e.g., professional negligence resulting in injury or death, Article 211–212).
Corporate liability can be both civil and criminal, depending on the case.
2. Case Law Examples
Case 1: Snow Brand Milk Poisoning Case (2000s recall context)
Facts:
Snow Brand Milk, a major dairy company, distributed milk contaminated with Staphylococcus aureus, causing hundreds of cases of food poisoning.
Court Findings:
Court applied Product Liability Law: the milk was inherently defective due to contamination.
Negligence was also considered due to insufficient sanitation controls.
Outcome:
Civil liability: the company paid compensation to affected individuals.
Criminal investigation into executives for professional negligence resulting in injury.
Precedent: emphasized strict corporate responsibility in food safety.
Case 2: Takata Airbag Defect Case (2013–2019)
Facts:
Defective airbags caused deaths and injuries worldwide, including in Japan. The defect caused airbags to explode upon deployment.
Court Findings:
PL Law used to hold Takata strictly liable for damages caused by defective airbags.
Criminal investigations for negligence resulting in injury/death considered executive knowledge of defects.
Outcome:
Massive recalls (millions of cars).
Compensation paid to victims; executives faced criminal scrutiny.
Highlighted corporate liability under strict liability and regulatory oversight.
Case 3: Sharp Electric Appliance Overheating Case (2010)
Facts:
A Sharp-brand electric heater caught fire due to a manufacturing defect, injuring a consumer.
Court Findings:
Court applied Product Liability Law, recognizing defect and causation.
Also considered negligence in quality control.
Outcome:
Civil compensation awarded to victim (~¥8 million).
Court noted that even if company followed standard procedures, liability could arise if defect existed.
Case 4: Olympus Medical Equipment Recall Case (2005)
Facts:
Defective endoscopes caused injury to patients due to malfunctioning parts.
Court Findings:
Product Liability Law: manufacturers strictly liable for defective medical devices.
Civil tort liability also considered under Article 709 of Civil Code for negligence in maintenance instructions.
Outcome:
Compensation to injured patients.
Precedent: companies must provide clear instructions and safety warnings for medical equipment.
Case 5: Sony Lithium-Ion Battery Fire Case (2006)
Facts:
Sony batteries in laptops caught fire due to defects.
Court Findings:
Civil liability under PL Law confirmed.
Court emphasized that recall delays increased damages, constituting additional liability.
Outcome:
Sony paid compensation to consumers.
Forced Japanese manufacturers to adopt proactive recall measures.
Case 6: Takara Tomy Toy Choking Hazard Case (2011)
Facts:
A toy sold by Takara Tomy contained small detachable parts causing choking to a child.
Court Findings:
Product Liability Law applied: product was defective due to design.
Civil liability established without proving negligence.
Outcome:
Compensation awarded to the child’s family.
Company recalled similar toys nationwide.
Legal lesson: design defects are as critical as manufacturing defects.
Case 7: Mitsubishi Electric Kitchen Appliance Electrocution Case (2014)
Facts:
A kitchen appliance had faulty wiring, leading to electrocution of a user.
Court Findings:
Strict liability under PL Law applied.
Court examined internal safety inspections: failure to detect defect constituted negligence.
Outcome:
Civil compensation awarded (~¥12 million).
Criminal charges were considered but limited due to lack of intent.
3. Key Legal Trends and Lessons
Strict Liability Principle
PL Law allows victims to claim damages without proving negligence.
Focus is on defect existence and causal link.
Corporate Negligence Matters
Criminal liability arises when executives or staff fail in regulatory duties.
Recalls and proactive measures reduce liability
Courts consider whether the company acted quickly after discovering defects.
Design, manufacturing, and warning defects
Any defect type—manufacturing, design, or lack of safety instructions—can trigger liability.
Medical, electronic, automotive, and toys
High-risk industries face more scrutiny; liability can be civil and criminal.
RELATED Blog
comments