Editing Tort (section)

===Japan===
Like the [[Napoleonic Code|French Civil Code]], the Japanese Civil Code only has a single provision on tort liability.<ref name=":6">{{Cite book|last=Oda|first=Hiroshi|url=http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199232185.001.1/acprof-9780199232185|title=Japanese Law|publisher=Oxford University Press|year=2009|isbn=978-0-19-923218-5|chapter=Law of Torts|doi=10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199232185.001.1}}</ref> Article 709 of the Civil Code states: "A person who has  intentionally or negligently infringed  any  right of others, or legally  protected interest of others, shall  be  liable to compensate any damages resulting in consequence."<ref name=Tsunematsu>Tsunematsu, Jun. (2010). Tort Liability in Japan: : How is it understood by Japanese legal professionals?. [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318641471_Tort_Liability_in_Japan_How_is_it_understood_by_Japanese_legal_professionals PDF]</ref> Tort liability in Japan therefore exists when three conditions are met: negligence or intentionality on the part of the tortfeasor, infringement of some legally recognised right, and a causal link between the tortfeasor's action and the infringement in question.<ref name=Tsunematsu/> As this leaves room for a broad and potentially unrestricted scope of tort liability, Japanese tort law gradually developed based on case law, including cases on pollution.<ref>J. Gresser et al., ''Environmental Law in Japan'' (Cambridge, Mass., 1981), pp. 128–130.</ref> Statutes outside the Civil Code also regulate specific types of torts, such as the Law on the Compensation of Losses arising from Car Accidents enacted in 1955, the 1973 Law on the Remedies of Harm Caused to Human Health by Pollution, and the 1994 Law on Product Liability.<ref name=":6" /> The standard of proof in Japanese tort litigation is that of "proof of a high degree of probability", a higher standard than the balance of probabilities utilised for tort liability in common law jurisdictions but lower than the reasonable doubt standard used in most legal systems for criminal trials, which the Japanese Supreme Court described in the leading case Miura v. Japan (a case on liability for medical malpractice):<ref name=PLJapan/>
{{blockquote|
Proving causation in litigation, unlike proving causation in the natural sciences (which permits no doubt at any point), requires proof of a high degree of probability that certain facts have induced the occurrence of a specific result by taking into necessary and sufficient account that the judge has been persuaded of the truthfulness to a degree where an average person would have no doubt.<ref>Miura v. Japan, 29-9 Minshû 1417 (Sup. Ct., 24 Oct. 1975). See also X v. Y, 1724 Hanrei jihô 29 (Sup. Ct., 18 July 2000).</ref>}}

Contemporary Japanese product liability law forms a distinct area of tort liability in which litigation may proceed under Article 709 of the Civil Code or the Product Liability Act of 1994.<ref name=PLJapan>{{Cite web|title=The Product Regulation and Liability Review: Japan|first1=Akihiro|last1=Hironaka|first2=Kota|last2=Hoshina|first3=Chisa|last3=Fukudome|url=https://thelawreviews.co.uk/title/the-product-regulation-and-liability-review/japan|website=The Law Reviews|date=25 March 2022|access-date=26 May 2022|url-access=subscription|archive-date=1 June 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220601210339/https://thelawreviews.co.uk/title/the-product-regulation-and-liability-review/japan|url-status=dead}}</ref> Under the Product Liability Act, which defines "products" as including any "movable item that is manufactured or processed"; manufacturers bear [[strict liability]] where a plaintiff proves the existence of:<ref name=PLJapan/>
* A defect in the product,
* Damage to life, body, or property, and
* A causal link between the defect and damage in question.

Under Japanese tort law, plaintiffs may seek compensation for both economic and non-economic damages, and there is no statutory cap on damages; however, punitive damages are forbidden on public policy grounds.<ref name=PLJapan/> Japanese courts regard the compensation of plaintiffs as the paramount purpose of damages under tort law, regarding punishment and deterrence as the exclusive domain of criminal law.<ref name=Tsunematsu/><ref name=Daisuke>Daisuke Mori & Shuichi Takahashi & Yasuhiro Ikeda, 2017. "Compensation, punishment, and deterrence: a survey on the purpose of tort damages in the case of a defective car accident in Japan", Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science, Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 589–624, October. DOI: 10.1007/s41685-017-0059-8</ref> Punitive damages awarded against tortfeasors by arbitral tribunals or foreign courts are unenforceable in Japan.<ref>Northcon I, Oregon Partnership v. Mansei Kôgyô Co Ltd, 51-6 Minshû 2573 (Sup. Ct., 11 July 1997)</ref><ref name=PLJapan/> Additionally, Japanese civil procedure does not allow for class actions and does not recognise [[mass tort]] liability.<ref name=PLJapan/>

As a result of the structure of Japan's tort system, the country experiences a significantly lower litigation rate than other jurisdictions. In a 1990 article,<ref name="ReferenceB">Takao Tanase, "The Management of Disputes: Automobile Accident Compensation in Japan", ''Law and Society Review'' 24 (1990), 651.</ref> Takao Tanase posited that the structure of Japan's civil court system and its tort jurisprudence account for its low litigation rate, rather than any fundamental difference in culture between Japan and other countries.<ref>R. Kagan On the Routinization of Tort Claims: Takao Tanase's "The Management of Disputes" This paper was presented at a Sho Sato Conference held on 12–13 February 2005 at Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California, Berkeley.</ref> Indeed; present literature finds that, although Japanese jurists take a narrow view of tort law as solely serving to compensate plaintiffs for proven damages, the general Japanese public views punishment and deterrence as being just as desirable in civil litigation as the public in other countries.<ref name=Tsunematsu/><ref name=Daisuke/> In Japan in 1986, fewer than 1% of automobile accidents involving death or an injury resulted in litigation, compared to 21.5% in the United States, a difference Tanase argues can be attributed to the availability of non-litigious methods of assessing fault, advising victims, determining compensation, and ensuring payment.<ref name="ReferenceB"/> Non-litigious dispute resolution mechanisms, mediation services, consultation centres operated by governments, the bar association, and insurance companies. The Japanese judiciary also works hard at developing clear, detailed rules that guarantee virtually automatic, predictable, moderate compensation for most accident victims. This contrasts with the tort system in common law jurisdictions, where the legal rules concerning both [[Legal liability|liability]] and [[Damages#General damages|general damages]] (i.e. non-economic loss) are stated in general terms, leaving a great deal to the judgment of constantly rotating lay juries—which in turn makes courtroom outcomes variable and difficult to predict.<ref name="ReferenceB" /> The result was a system that is vastly more efficient and reliable in delivering compensation than in common law jurisdictions, albeit without punitive or exemplary damages. Tanase estimated that legal fees comprised only 2% of the total compensation paid to injured persons. In the United States in the late 1980s, according to two big studies of motor vehicle accident tort claims (not just lawsuits), payments to lawyers equaled 47% of the total personal injury benefits paid by insurers. This expense drives up the cost of insurance to the point that huge numbers of drivers are uninsured or under-insured, which means that victims of their negligent driving will get little or nothing from the tort system.<ref name="ReferenceB" />