2021.11.02

2020 (Ju) 1252

Minshu Vol. 75, No. 9

Judgment concerning the point in time when the period of extinctive prescription set forth in the first sentence of Article 724 of the Civil Code (prior to the amendment by Act No. 44 of 2017) commences to run with regard to a claim of the victim in a traffic accident against the perpetrator for compensation for loss or damage in tort due to vehicle damage in the case where the traffic accident caused the victim to suffer losses or damages due to both bodily injury and vehicle damage

Case seeking compensation for loss or damage

Judgment of the Third Petty Bench, partially quashed and decided by the Supreme Court, partially dismissed without prejudice

Osaka High Court, Judgment of June 4, 2020

The period of extinctive prescription set forth in the first sentence of Article 724 of the Civil Code (prior to the amendment by Act No. 44 of 2017) with regard to a claim of the victim in a traffic accident against the perpetrator for compensation for loss or damage in tort due to vehicle damage commences to run when the victim comes to know not only the identity of the perpetrator but also the loss or damage due to the vehicle damage, even in the case where the same traffic accident has also caused the same victim to suffer a loss or damage due to bodily injury.

Article 724 of the Civil Code (prior to the amendment by Act No. 44 of 2017)

Civil Code(prior to the amendment by Act No. 44 of 2017)

(Restriction of Period of Right to Demand Compensation for Damages in Tort)

Article 724 The right to demand compensation for damages in tort shall be extinguished by the operation of prescription if it is not exercised by the victim or his/her legal representative within three years from the time when he/she comes to know of the damages and the identity of the perpetrator. The same shall apply when twenty years have elapsed from the time of the tortious act.

1. Of the judgment in prior instance, the part concerning the claim for compensation for the loss or damage due to the vehicle damage is quashed, and the judgment in first instance is revoked with regard to that part.

2. The claim of the appellee of final appeal regarding the part mentioned in the preceding paragraph is dismissed with prejudice on the merits.

3. The other part of the final appeal filed by the appellant of final appeal is dismissed without prejudice.

4. The total court costs are divided into six parts, of which one part shall be borne by the appellant and the rest shall be borne by the appellee.

Concerning the reasons for a petition for acceptance of final appeal stated by the counsel for final appeal, HAYASHI Nobuo

1. In this case, to seek compensation, based on tort and other legal basis, the appellee who was involved in a traffic accident while driving a vehicle, sues the appellant who was driving a vehicle that caused the accident for the losses or damages due to the bodily injuries and vehicle damage suffered by the appellee due to the traffic accident. The issue of the case is whether the appellee's claim for compensation for loss or damage in tort due to that vehicle damage has been extinguished by prescription upon the passage of the three-year period prescribed in the first sentence of Article 724 of the Civil Code prior to the amendment by Act No. 44 of 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "short-term extinctive prescription").

2. The outline of facts lawfully determined by the court of prior instance is as follows.

(1) On February 26, 2015, an accident occurred in which the large motorcycle owned and driven by the appellee (hereinafter referred to as the "Vehicle") and the regular passenger vehicle driven by the appellant collided with each other at an intersection (hereinafter referred to as the "Accident").

(2) The appellee suffered injuries including a whiplash injury due to the Accident and received medical treatment as an outpatient, and on August 25, 2015, the appellee received a diagnosis of no prospect of recovery from his/her symptoms. The Accident also caused damage to the Vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the "Vehicle Damage").

(3) On August 14, 2018, the appellee filed this lawsuit. The appellee alleges that the amount of loss or damage due to the Vehicle Damage is the sum of the amount equivalent to the market price of the Vehicle and the amount equivalent to the legal fee, and claims that amount as the amount of compensation for loss or damage.

In response, the appellant invokes short-term extinctive prescription, alleging that the appellee's claim for compensation for loss or damage in tort due to the Vehicle Damage had been extinguished by prescription before the filing of this lawsuit. There is no dispute between the parties regarding the fact that the appellee had come to know, no later than August 13, 2015, that the other party in the Accident was the appellant.

3. Based on the facts mentioned above, the court of prior instance dismissed the appellant's defense of short-term extinctive prescription, and partially upheld the appellee's claims, including the claim for compensation for loss or damage in tort due to the Vehicle Damage, determining as summarized below.

It is reasonable to consider that in cases where the same traffic accident has caused the victim to surfer losses or damages due to both bodily injury and vehicle damage, the period of short-term extinctive prescription for the victim's claim against the perpetrator for compensation for loss or damage in tort due to the vehicle damage commences to run from the time when the victim comes to know not only the identity of the perpetrator but also the entirety of the losses or damages caused by the traffic accident. In the Accident, the appellee suffered losses or damages due to the bodily injuries and the vehicle damage. It is reasonable to find that it is August 25, 2015, the date when the appellee received the diagnosis of no prospect of recovery from his/her symptoms, that he/she came to know the entirety of the losses or damages caused by the Accident. Therefore, the short-term extinctive prescription for the appellee's claim against the appellant for compensation for loss or damage in tort due to the Vehicle Damage was not yet completed as of August 14, 2018, when this lawsuit was filed.

4. However, the determination of the court of prior instance mentioned above cannot be upheld for the following reasons.

(1) It is reasonable to consider that the period of short-term extinctive prescription for the claim of a victim in a traffic accident against the perpetrator for compensation for loss or damage in tort due to the vehicle damage commences to run from the time when the victim comes to know not only the identity of the perpetrator but also the loss or damage due to the vehicle damage, even in the case where the same traffic accident has also caused the same victim to suffer loss or damage due to bodily injury.

This is because the loss or damage due to the vehicle damage and the loss or damage due to the bodily injury differ in terms of the interests violated thereby, even if these losses or damages have been caused by the same traffic accident to the same victim. The claim for compensation for loss or damage in tort due to the vehicle damage is considered to be a claim that is different from the claim for compensation for loss or damage in tort due to the bodily injury. If that is the case, the point in time when the period of short-term extinctive prescription commences to run should be determined separately for each of these claims.

(2) This reasoning can be applied in this case as follows. According to the facts mentioned above, it is found that, except for the legal fee, the appellee came to know at least the loss or damage due to the Vehicle Damage on the day of the Accident, and the appellee came to know the identity of the perpetrator of the Accident no later than August 13, 2015. Hence, it is clear that by the time of the filing of this lawsuit, the short-term extinctive prescription for the appellee's claim against the appellant for compensation in tort for said loss or damage due to the Vehicle Damage had been completed. In addition, since the claim for compensation for that loss or damage is not upheld, it should be said that the claim for compensation for the loss or damage relating to the legal fee that has been incurred for filing and conducting the lawsuit to make that claim is also not upheld.

5. The determination of the court of prior instance that is contrary to the above contains violation of laws and regulations that obviously affects the judgment, and the counsel's arguments are well-grounded. The part of the judgment in prior instance concerning the claim for compensation for loss or damage due to the Vehicle Damage should inevitably be quashed. According to the explanation given above, the appellee's claim concerning that part is groundless. Therefore, the judgment in first instance should be revoked with regard to the same part, and the appellee's claim concerning the same part should be dismissed with prejudice on the merits.

The final appeal regarding other claims is dismissed without prejudice because the appellant has not submitted a document stating the reasons for a petition for acceptance of final appeal.

Accordingly, the Court unanimously decides as set forth in the main text of the judgment.

Justice NAGAMINE Yasumasa

Justice TOKURA Saburo

Justice UGA Katsuya

Justice HAYASHI Michiharu