A person getting on an escalator handrail fell downstairs and died; negligence in product liability was not affirmed for the accidental death

The following case is related to an accidental death of a user of a commercial building. When leaning back on the handrail of the escalator installed on the second floor in an open ceiling space between the first floor and the second floor, the person was moved onto the handrail due to friction, and fell on the first floor and died. Parents of the person claimed for damages against a joint owner of the building, etc. based on liability of possessor and owner of structure on land under the Civil Code and against the manufacturer of the escalator based on product liability under the Product Liability Act.

The court dismissed the claim, construing that the accident had not been caused by a defect of the escalator (Judgement by the Tokyo High Court on January 29, 2014).

• Page 30 of Hanrei Jiho No.2230

Summary of the case

Plaintiff:

X1 (father of the person who used the commercial building and accidentally died)

X2 (mother of the person who used the commercial building and accidentally died)

Defendant:

Y1 (company which manages and runs the commercial building, a joint owner of the building)

Y2 (company which leases the commercial building from B and outsources its management to Y1)

Y3 (manufacturer of the escalator)

Parties concerned:

A (person who used the commercial building and accidentally died, aged late 40s at that time)

B (company which leases the commercial building to Y2)

At night of April 8, 2009, A had dinner with A's boss and colleagues (more than 10 persons in total) celebrating A's promotion at a Japanese restaurant (hereinafter called "the restaurant") on the second floor in a commercial building (43-story building with 4 floors in the basement, constructed in 2003) in Tokyo. Around 21:30 after the dinner, a group photo of all the participants was taken at an open space in front of the restaurant near the entrance of the down escalator toward the first floor (hereinafter called "the escalator"). While A's colleagues were returning chairs used for the group photo to the restaurant, A was standing close to the entrance of the escalator for a while. Around 21:43, A's back touched and moved onto the turn-around portion of the right moving handrail of the down escalator. A lost balance and fell from outside of the escalator through an open ceiling space down to the first floor (hereinafter called "the accident"). Around 0:30 on the next day, A died of intracranial injury.

A's parents (X1 and X2) claimed damages of over 96,000,000 yen in total against Y1 which jointly owns the building and manages the entire building as well as Y2 which leases a co-ownership interest of the building from B and outsources its management to Y1 on the grounds that there had been a defect in installment and/or preservation of the escalator under Article 717 of the Civil Code (liability of possessor and owner of structure on land), and against Y3 which manufactured the escalator on the grounds that there had been a defect in the escalator under Article 3 of the Product Liability Act. In response, Y1 and Y2 alleged that there had been no defect in installation/preservation and that A's abnormal action of leaning back on the handrail had caused the accident. Y3 also alleged that there had been no defect in the escalator. They argued all the points.

In the first instance (reference precedent (1)), the court confirmed circumstances of the accident by watching a video recorded by a monitoring camera installed near the escalator and judged that the accident had been caused by A's action; after the group photo was taken, A approached the moving handrail while being aware of the escalator and leaned back on the turn-around portion of the moving handrail with A's backbone side attached to the portion. The court dismissed the claim of X1 and X2 on the grounds that such an abnormal/unpredictable action was far from the ordinary use of the escalator and that it cannot be said that the escalator had lacked safety that the product ordinarily should provide. X1 and X2 were dissatisfied with the judgment and appealed to the upper court.

Reasons

More than 7,000 escalators of a type and/or model same as the above escalator were manufactured and installed across Japan. Except for the above accident, it has not been reported that user's body touched the moving handrail and moved on it due to friction. Even persons who lack judgment were not carried onto the moving handrail due to friction when they temporarily happened to lean on the moving handrail or when they temporarily placed their body weight on it after losing balance. They were safe as far as they follow the ordinary manner of use: approaching the entrance of the escalator, grabbing the moving handrail and getting on a step.

A intentionally approached and leaned back on the moving handrail with A's backbone side attached to the turn-around portion, as a result of which A's body was carried onto the moving handrail (After moving A's left hand behind A's back and grabbing the moving handrail, A spread legs widely and attached A's hip to the turn-around portion of the moving handrail. After A gradually leaned back, A's body was carried onto the handrail and A straddled it backward. A's body was moved toward the advancing direction of the handrail. In the end, A sat on the handrail facing inner side of the escalator and fell headlong toward the first floor after losing balance). This is far from ordinary use. Even if assuming that escalator users include persons who lack judgment, it cannot be construed that Y1 and Y2 should have installed and preserved the escalator on the basis that there might be persons taking action like A.

Concerning product liability, which was asserted by X1 and X2, it was construed that the escalator had complied with regulations concerned. The escalator had a widely-spread specification. It cannot be construed that the escalator lacked safety that the product ordinarily should provide, while the accident occurred due to A's action far from ordinary use of the escalator. Accordingly, neither negligence in liability of possessor and owner of structure on land nor negligence in product liability was affirmed.

Explanation

In this case, defendants were accused of negligence in liability of possessor and owner of structure on land under Article 717 of the Civil Code as well as in product liability under Article 3 of the Product Liability Act concerning the accidental death of A who leaned back on the escalator handrail and was carried onto the handrail, and then fell headlong toward the first floor and died from getting whacked in the head.

Both in the first and second sentences, the court did not affirm the claim by X1 and X2, stating "The escalator meets the relevant safety standard. The accident would not have occurred if the person had used the escalator normally. The accident was caused by the abnormal/unpredictable use by the victim: leaning back on the moving handrail. There was no defect in installation/preservation of the escalator. It does not constitute a defect under Article 2 (2) of the Product Liability Act".

When determining existence of a defect, a key point of the Product Liability Act, the manner of use is also considered. Concerning the manner of use, it is construed that the product shall keep safety in foreseeable misuse as well as in ordinary use. For example, a chair is used for sitting on, but it is foreseeable to be used as a step. If a person used a chair as a step and the chair toppled, as a result of which the user got injured, it cannot be construed that the product did not have a defect. On the contrary, in case of abnormal and unforeseeable use, it cannot be construed that the product had a defect.

In this judgment as in the first sentence, the court judged that the user's action of leaning back on the escalator handrail constituted an abnormal use and that defendants were not found to be negligent under Article 717 of the Civil Code (liability of possessor and owner of structure on land) as well as under the Product Liability Act.

In this case, a video of the accident had been taken by the monitoring camera, and detailed circumstances of the accident including A's action were confirmed and recognized. However, there might be some subtlety in determining whether the user's action constitutes misuse or abnormal use. The accident occurred in the commercial building where many drunken customers come and go. It can be an open question how safety should be considered. Incidentally, the escalator was originally planned to be used for going up, but it was used for going down at the time of the accident. The escalator has been used for going up after the accident.

Reference precedents

1. Judgment by the Tokyo District Court on April 19, 2013
   (Page 44 of Hanrei Jiho No.2190, page 214 of Hanrei Times No.1394 (the first sentence of this case))
2. Judgment by the Okayama District Court on January 25, 1994
   (Page 212 of Hanrei Times No.860 (Concerning an accident at an escalator in a building, the court denied liability of possessor and owner of structure on land under Article 717 of the Civil Code as well as obligations of considering safety))
3. Judgment by the Tokyo District Court on December 24, 1982
   (Page 95 of Hanrei Jiho No.1096 (Concerning an accident at a department store, the court denied negligence in liability of possessor and owner of structure on land under Article 717 of the Civil Code as well as obligations of considering safety))
4. Judgment by the Matsuyama District Court on February 19, 1973
   (Page 79 of Hanrei Jiho No.708 (Concerning an accident at an escalator installed in a hot spring facility, the court affirmed negligence in liability of possessor and owner of structure on land under Article 717 of the Civil Code))