Train Company Sues For Losses After Man, 91, Hit By Train
by Beth on Sunday, August 11, 2013
by Beth on Sunday, August 11, 2013
Japanese netizens have been shocked and angered by a story reported in the Nikkei Shimbun, in which the family of a 91-year old man with dementia were ordered to pay compensation to JR Tokai, after the man wandered onto the railway line and was hit by a train back in 2007.
The train company sued for compensation to cover losses caused by the train delays, and the judge ruled that the man’s wife, who was 85 at the time of the accident, and his eldest son were responsible, since they had failed in his care.
Many have called this a completely heartless judgement, that shows no regard for how difficult it is for families to take care of relatives with dementia — a key issue in an ageing society.
Do you think the train company deserved compensation? Or should the judge have had more consideration for the difficulties of caring for the eldery?
From Nikkei Shimbun:
Man With Dementia Dies After Walking On Railway Line, Family Ordered To Pay Compensation For Resulting Train Delays
On August 9, the judgement in a lawsuit brought by JR Tokai demanding compensation for train delays from the family of a man with dementia (91 years old at the time of the accident) who died after being hit by a train when he walked on the railway line, was delivered at Nagoya district court (Judge Ueda Tetsu presiding). JR Tokai claimed that the man’s family had not taken sufficient safety measures, and the man’s widow and eldest son have been ordered to pay total costs in the region of 7200000 yen [approx. $74743].
According to the details of the judgement, in December 2007, the man walked onto the track at JR Kyowa station in Obu, Aichi Prefecture, and died after a collision with a train on the Tokkaido main line. In February of that year the man had been diagnosed as an “elderly person with dementia, independence level 4″, which meant “constant care necessary”.
Judge Ueda said that in the moment that the man’s wife, who lived with him, had taken her eyes off him, he had gone outside, and that this had caused the accident. The judge acknowledged that “the fault lies with the wife in that she failed to watch over him”. He also ruled that the man’s eldest son, who lived apart from his parents, had been a “de facto carer”, and that “there were none of the crucial measures in place to prevent him from wandering off”.
The man’s family insist that to constantly watch over him was impossible, since his wife was 85 years old at the time of the accident. However, Judge Ueda indicated that the family did not take measures such as getting professional carers for the man. The judge stated that “The framework for this man’s care was based on the premise that his carers would not be distracted from watching over him, and thus they cannot evade the responsibility inherent in this failure”.
