Product liability under Article 3 of the Product Liability Act was affirmed due to a defect in a stretch dog leash

The following case is concerned with product liability for an accidental injury of a dog. When a person was taking a dog walk using a stretch dog leash, the dog suddenly ran and the person pushed a brake button of the leash to stop the dog, but the brake button did not work. As a result, the dog injured its rear legs. The dog owner claimed damages against the import and sales company of the stretch dog leash based on Article 3 of the Product Liability Act.

The court construed that the brake system of the stretch dog leash did not have the function that such a product normally should have and therefore it had the defect specified in Article 3 of the Product Liability Act, and partly affirmed the damage claim, overriding the original decision. (Judgment by the Nagoya High Court on October 13, 2011)

• Page 224 of Shohishaho News No.90
• Page 248 of Hanrei Times No.1364, and so forth

Summary of the case

Plaintiff, appellant:

X (Consumer, dog owner)

Defendant, appellee:

Y (Import and sales company of the stretch dog leash)

Party concerned:

A (Manufacturer of the stretch dog leash)

1. In July 2008, X visited a neighboring home-improvement store and bought a stretch dog leash for about 5,000 yen, which can be reeled in and out corresponding to movement of a dog while a dog walk. X began to use it for taking X's dog for a walk.
2. In the morning of July 15, X attached the stretch dog leash on X's dog (weight: 24kg, length: about 70cm, height: about 50cm at the time of the accident) and brought the dog for a walk. When X was trying to cross a street after strolling along the banks of a river, X's dog suddenly began to run toward a Labrador Retriever on the opposite side of the street. X kept pushing the brake button of the stretch dog leash to stop the elongation thereof, but it just made a clattering sound. The leash became fully stretched. X thought the big Labrador Retriever might bite X's dog if it gets close to the Lab, so X held X's ground to prevent the leash from further being pulled in order to stop X's dog from jumping across the ditch nearby. As a result, X's dog was pulled by its collar and its head was raised. It stood by rear legs, then fell backwards, twisting its body. X's dog injured its rear legs (right rear leg: tear of anterior cruciate ligament / left rear leg: damage of ligament with possibility of tear). Later, X's dog was taken to an animal hospital twice for treatment and operation.
3. Y started import and sales of stretch dog leashes in June 2001 as the Japanese distributor for company A based in Germany.
4. X filed a suit against Y with the Gifu District Court for damages more than 1,230,000 yen including treatment cost for X's dog, amount equivalent to the stretch dog leash, and damages for pain and suffering under Article 3 of the Product Liability Act, stating that: i) The stretch dog leash lacks a function to stop the elongation (design flaw); ii) The brake does not work when the reel is rotating fast (manufacturing defect); iii) No mechanism to gradually slow down the rotation till the reel stops (design flaw in the brake mechanism); iv) The instruction manual does not include warnings about potential accidents and for preventing accidents (lack of instructions/warnings).
5. The court of original judgment rejected X's claim on the grounds that the stretch dog leash did not have any defect in the elongation of the leash, the function of the brake button, nor instructions/warnings.

Accordingly, X appealed to the upper court.

Reasons

1. In this case, the brake button of the stretch dog leash did not work and just made a clattering sound while X kept pushing the brake button, then the stretch dog leash was fully stretched. Therefore, it can be inferred that the reel (spinning disk) went off the track during fast rotation and that the tip section inside brake button just slipped on the side of the reel and was unable to be further pushed in, as a result of which the tip section did not mesh with the teeth of the reel.
2. The product like the stretch dog leash intends to control and guide movement of a dog during a dog walk as well as quickly put on the brake to stop the elongation of the leash in order to prevent the dog from harming persons or other animals. Therefore, such a product shall be designed to enable to stop the elongation quickly and surely by pushing the brake button when a dog suddenly starts running.
   As mentioned in the above, the brake button of the stretch dog leash did not work while pushing the button because the tip section inside the brake button did not mesh with the teeth of the reel. It is undeniable that the brake button did not have a function that it normally should have and that the product fell short of safety.
3. Consequently, the stretch dog leash has a defect prescribed in Article 3 of the Product Liability Act and Y is liable for damages under Article 3 of the Product Liability Act.
4. Y alleged that pushing the brake button did not require big force and that the reel inside would not go off the track even during fast rotation, showing a report of a test simulating situations where a dog run at a speed of 10-15km/hour. However, X's dog was running at a speed of around 30km/hour, so the condition was different from that of the test conducted by Y. Moreover, the purpose of the test was to clarify whether or not a dog gets injured when the leash is pulled, so the test does not prove that the brake button has no defect. Y also alleged that X was unfamiliar with using the stretch dog leash, but it cannot be a reason because it is easy to handle the stretch dog leash.

(The Nagoya High Court judged as above and ordered Y to pay damages about 800,000 yen.)

Explanation

In this case, it was argued whether or not the stretch dog leash was defective in the brake function.

The court of original judgment construed that the elongation of the leash is not related with the accident. The court denied the defect in the function of the brake button for the following reasons: (1) it can be hardly supposed that the tip section inside the brake button is often placed right above the teeth of the reel; (2) even if the tip section is placed right above the teeth, the brake would work if the button is pushed again. The court also denied the defect in the brake mechanism, stating that it was technically difficult to apply such a mechanism which gradually slows down the rotation and that a dog owner can avoid accidents if he or she appropriately controls the leash. Concerning the lack of instructions/warnings, the court rejected X's claim on the grounds that it was easy to understand risks when a dog suddenly runs and that it was possible to put on the brake before the leash was fully elongated.

The court of second instance focused on the nature of the product, stating that the product should have been designed to quickly put on the brake and stop the elongation of the leash in order to avoid a dog from running toward a person or an animal to cause harm. The court affirmed the defect in the stretch dog leash because it did not have a sufficient function which such a product should normally have.

Recent precedents by which a product defect was affirmed include the judgment by the Sendai High Court on April 22, 2010 which construed that a heat injury was caused by heat of a mobile phone (reference precedent (1)), and the judgment by the Tokyo District Court on September 30, 2009 which determined malfunction of an automotive air-bag system.

When drafting the Product Liability Act, how to verify a product defect was highly debated. Most of the actual judgments virtually inferred the existence of a product defect in cases where abnormal damages were expanded even if the product was used in a standard manner, considering "the nature of the product" specified in Article 2 (2) of the Product Liability Act.

The judgment by the Nagoya High Court is in line with the trend of these judgments which affirmed product defects.

Reference precedents

The following judgments affirmed the product liability.

1. Judgment by the Sendai High Court on April 22, 2010 (Page 42 of Hanrei Jiho No.2086)
2. Judgment by the Tokyo District Court on September 30, 2009 (Page 126, Hanrei Times No.1338)
3. Judgment by the Tokyo High Court on April 12, 2001 (Page 45 of Hanrei Jiho No.1773 / The court construed that a plastic food container cutting machine lacked the level of safety that such a product should normally have and affirmed the product liability of the manufacturer of the product.)
4. Judgment by the Fukuoka High Court on January 14, 2005 (Page 289 of Hanrei Times No.1197 / Concerning a plague of vermin in a building, the court affirmed product liability of a distributor of building materials.)