Issues related to litigation proof of exposure to causative agents of chemical pollution diseases

What kind of lawsuits will be instituted as a way for pollution-related disease patients whose causes are chemical substances to seek legal remedies?

As an example of this type of lawsuit, we will take a look at Minamata Disease, for which many lawsuits have been filed. Lawsuits for Minamata Disease can be roughly classified into actions for defining the scope of relief under the Act on Special Measures Concerning Relief for Health Damage from Pollution and the Act on Compensation for Pollution-Related Health Damage and other Relief Laws, and actions for claiming damages (including claims under the State Liability for Compensation Law against the State and Kumamoto Prefecture) have been filed.

However, in any form of litigation, in principle, the pollution victims bear the burden of proving that they have contracted a pollution disease due to Minamata Disease (the situation of methylmercury pollution in the Yashiro Sea that caused Minamata Disease is referred to as “Minamata Disease Pollution”). Since Minamata Disease is considered to be methylmercury poisoning caused by the ingestion of methylmercury discharged by the Chisso Minamata Plant into the body, it is necessary to prove in court that the plaintiff was exposed to a considerable extent to the methylmercury discharged by Chisso.

Among the Minamata Disease patients, there are many “patients of embryonal Minamata Disease” who have taken methylmercury into the body through the placenta at the time of birth. In this section, we will discuss the cases of Minamata Disease patients who were contracted by exposure to methylmercury after birth other than those with embryonal Minamata Disease.

Therefore, in order to prove that the victims of Minamata Disease are suffering from Minamata Disease, it is necessary to prove (1) the extent to which methylmercury-contaminated fish and seafood were consumed by the plaintiff (2).

However, the evidence concerning (1) is not sufficient regarding the situation of methylmercury contamination of fish and shellfish in the coastal areas of Kumamoto Prefecture at the time of the pollution (although the measurement of methylmercury was not possible at that time, the mercury content of fish and shellfish was estimated to be mostly methylmercury (Akagi Yokatsu “Dityzon Extraction – Analysis of Methylmercury in Fish and Seafood by Gas Chromatography” Vol. 40, No. 1, p. 293). However, it is not clear whether the methylmercury compound contamination data of fish and shellfish in the coastal areas of Kagoshima Prefecture existed originally or did not exist.Almost nonexistent at present.

However, Minamata City, where the Chisso Minamata Plant, which discharged methylmercury compounds, is located, is adjacent to Izumi City, Kagoshima Prefecture, and many people in Izumi City are suffering from Minamata Disease. However, as it is difficult to collect new data on the pollution status of fish and shellfish at the time of pollution from Minamata Disease, it is difficult to prove the status of pollution at present.

Also, for (2), fish and seafood contaminated with methylmercury (usually fish and seafood caught in the sea area contaminated with methylmercury). There is no objective evidence about the extent to which the catched sea area can be regarded as a polluted sea area. It is a problem to prove in (1). Therefore, it is difficult to collect evidence other than the testimony of the parties concerned today.

In addition, unlike the case of Acute Methylmerylmercury poisoning, which was a problem shortly after the occurrence of environmental pollution, there are cases where a considerable period of time has elapsed between the time of exposure to methylmercury and the time of the onset of the disease in patients with chronic or delayed methylmercury poisoning. Therefore, it is difficult to accurately prove this fact because of a lack of recollection of dietary habits at that time.

In particular, since the victims of Minamata Disease did not know the causes even at that time, there was no incentive to preserve the evidence in (1) and (2), making it difficult to provide relief to victims through litigation.

From the point of view of the litigation of Minamata Disease, it may be important to preserve the results of environmental measurement and keep records of the exposure status of causative substances in a wider geographical area where pollution by chemicals has been recognized.

最近の記事
人気の記事
おすすめの記事
  1. 那須雪崩事故~公立高校の部活時の登山事故と指導教員個人の責任

  2. 定年後再雇用時の賃金と定年前の賃金について

  3. 同一根拠法の処分の取消訴訟における異なる原告適格の判断と判例変更

  4. 行政処分に対する取消訴訟の原告適格が認められる範囲について

  5. 外廊下の水たまりは民法717条1項の瑕疵となるのでしょうか

  1. 法律上の期間、期限など日に関すること

  2. 職務専念義務違反とは?~義務の内容、根拠、問題となるケースなど

  3. スノーシューツアーの雪崩事故におけるガイドの刑事責任~ニセコ雪崩事故

  4. 公序良俗違反とは?~その意味、具体例、法的効果と金銭返還請求など

  5. 解雇予告の30日前の数え方と夜勤の労働時間の計算-労働基準法の日と時間

  1. スキー場の雪崩事故と国賠法の瑕疵認定~判断枠組み、予見可能性の影響等

  2. 公序良俗違反とは?~その意味、具体例、法的効果と金銭返還請求など

  3. スキー場立入禁止区域で発生した雪崩事故の経営・管理会社、同行者の責任

  4. 登山事故の分類と民事訴訟について

  5. 日和田山転落(クライミング)事故にみる山岳会での登山事故の法的責任

関連記事