2025.03.07

2023(Ju)927

Minshu Vol. 79, No. 3

(Civil Case) Judgment concerning whether a prefecture is held liable to compensate for damage under Article 1, paragraph (1) of the State Redress Act in the case where an inspector who belonged to the prefectural police department established by the prefecture committed suicide, on the grounds that the inspector's superiors breached the duty of care to ensure that the inspector's physical and mental health would not be impaired

Case seeking compensation for damage

Judgment of the Second Petty Bench, quashed and remanded

Hiroshima High Court, Judgment of February 15, 2023

In the case where an inspector who belonged to a prefectural police department committed suicide, under the following circumstances (1) to (6) as indicated in the judgment, the prefecture that has established the prefectural police department is liable to compensate for damage under Article 1, paragraph (1) of the State Redress Act on the grounds that the inspector's superiors breached the duty of care to ensure that the inspector's physical and mental health would not be impaired: (1) the number of overtime hours worked by the inspector in the month immediately before the suicide more than doubled from approximately 43 hours in the previous month to over 112 hours, and the amount of work that the inspector had been performing during the period immediately before the suicide had increased significantly because several other kinds of work that involved a considerable burden had been assigned to the inspector in addition to the previously assigned work; (2) the inspector worked for 14 consecutive days two times with only one day off in-between during the month immediately before the suicide, and each of these periods of consecutive work included five on-duty shifts which were individually over 24 hours in length, and moreover, the inspector also worked for a considerable amount of time on the off-duty day after each on-duty shift; (3) concerning the onset of the depressive episode that the abovementioned inspector developed around the time of the suicide, other than the work performed by the inspector during the period immediately before the suicide, there are no circumstances that should be considered to have contributed to the onset of the depressive episode; (4) the inspector's superiors were in the position where they should necessarily know that several other kinds of work were additionally assigned to the inspector, and moreover, they had access to the logbooks in the police box where the inspector was working, and one of these superiors had received overtime work performance reports from the inspector; (5) one of the inspector's superiors knew that the inspector received the worst possible rating in the stress test that the inspector had taken about three months before the suicide; and (6) the inspector's superiors did not take any concrete measures to reduce the burden on the inspector. (There is a concurring opinion.)

Article 1, paragraph (1) of the State Redress Act

The judgment in prior instance is quashed. The case is remanded to the Hiroshima High Court.

Concerning the reasons for a petition for acceptance of final appeal stated by the counsel for final appeal, SATO Manami 1. In this case, with regard to the suicide of Inspector A, who belonged to the Shizuoka Prefectural Police Department, the appellants, who are the parents of Inspector A, sued the appellee, which has established the Shizuoka Prefectural Police Department, to seek compensation for damage under Article 1, paragraph (1) of the State Redress Act, alleging that the inspector's suicide was caused by excessive work and that the appellants suffered mental distress due to the suicide. 2. The outline of the facts determined by the court of prior instance is as follows. (1) Inspector A (born on July 3, 1980) was hired by the Shizuoka Prefectural Police Department in April 2003 and was assigned to the Community Police Division of the Shimoda Police Station in March 2010. After that, Inspector A worked as the head of the Central Police Box of that police station, but committed suicide on March 10, 2012. (2) The work system and the management of overtime hours, etc. at the Central Police Box at the time when Inspector A was working there were as follows. a. The work system applicable to the Central Police Box's staff members, including its head, was a shift-work system under which the staff members were divided into three teams, which worked in shifts by rotation of [i] on-duty, [ii] off-duty, and [iii] weekly day off (or day shift), specified respectively as follows. [i] On-duty: from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. the next day (of which a total of 8 hours and 30 minutes is break time, including napping time), the staff members were to engage in patrols, standing guard, and visiting households and business establishments in the area to provide information and hear opinions, and also engage in other work such as handling incidents and accidents that occurred in the area. [ii] Off-duty: after finishing on-duty work, the staff members were to wait at the Central Police Box for the arrival of the team of staff members for the next shift who were to work on duty for the day, hand over their work to the next team, and then go to the Shimoda Police Station to make prescribed reports to end their shift. [iii] Weekly day off (or day shift): in principle, the staff members would be given a weekly day off on the day following an off-duty day, but once or twice a month, they were to work on a day shift from 9:00 a.m. to 5:45 p.m. (including a one-hour break), and engage in the same work as that during the on-duty shift. b. The staff members at the Central Police Box were required to write in their work logbooks the specifics such as their shift category, hours worked, and activities. The logbooks were circulated among the officers at the Shimoda Police Station, including the community police division chief, and the deputy chief and the chief of the police station. In addition, when the staff members of the Central Police Box engaged in work outside of their regular working hours, they were required every month to prepare an overtime work performance report describing the type of work, hours worked, overtime hours worked, and details of activities on the day in question, and submit the report to the community police division chief. The community police division chief was Inspector A's superior and received Inspector A's overtime work performance reports from the inspector. (3) The details of the work and the status of overtime work of Inspector A at the Central Police Box were as follows. a. Inspector A engaged in the work specified in Attachment 2 of the judgment in first instance, "Work of Head of Police Box," as the head of the Central Police Box, in addition to the work as its staff member. b. In the jurisdiction of the Central Police Box, there had been a series of residential burglaries since around April 2011 (this series of residential burglaries are referred to below as the "serial burglaries"). Even after the investigation team dedicated to the investigation of the serial burglaries was formed on February 7, 2012, Inspector A continued to conduct voluntary patrols outside of regular working hours (referred to below as the "patrols in relation to the serial burglaries"). Inspector A described these patrols in overtime work performance reports and submitted them to the community police division chief, and was treated as having worked overtime. c. At the Shizuoka Prefectural Police Department, an on-the-job training program was conducted for trainees who had completed the initial training course at the police academy (simply referred to below as "trainees"). As trainees were not allowed to perform their duties alone in principle, they were required to be accompanied and guided by an on-the-job training instructor when they engaged in any kind of work. At the Central Police Box, two trainees were assigned as replacements for the two staff members who were assigned to the abovementioned investigation team. On February 5, 2012, Inspector A was appointed as an on-the-job training instructor, and since then, the inspector engaged in the work as an on-the-job training instructor as well. d. Inspector A expected to be transferred from the Shimoda Police Station on the occasion of the personnel transfer in March 2012, and from around February of the same year, the inspector came to work at the Central Police Box on weekly days off, etc. to prepare a document for handover, which was required to be prepared at the Shizuoka Prefectural Police Department upon personnel transfer (referred to below as the "handover work"). e. In November 2011, Inspector A was selected as the only participant from the Shizuoka Prefectural Police Department in an overseas training program in the Netherlands (scheduled to depart on April 8, 2012, and return on May 3, 2012; referred to below as the "Training Program"). Inspector A participated in pre-training meetings held in Numazu City, Shizuoka Prefecture, on December 18, 2011, January 15, 2012, and February 26, 2012, for approximately four hours each, and also engaged in the preparation of a presentation to be given in English during the Training Program (the work for the Training Program, including participation in the pre-training meetings, is collectively referred to below as the "Preparation for the Training Program"). The Preparation for the Training Program was work assigned to Inspector A at the Shizuoka Prefectural Police Department. f. As shown in the "Number of Overtime Hours Worked" column of the table "1. Total Hours Worked" in Attachment 2 of the judgment in prior instance, "Inspector A's Working Hours (as Found by the Court)," the number of overtime hours worked by Inspector A per month during the six months before the suicide was 112 hours and 15 minutes, 42 hours and 38 minutes, 60 hours and 30 minutes, 72 hours and 57 minutes, 81 hours and 30 minutes, and 23 hours, respectively, in descending order from immediately before the suicide. In addition, Inspector A's working status during the month immediately before the suicide was as shown in the "Findings by This Court" column of the table "2. One Month Before Onset (from February 10 to March 10, 2012)" in the same attachment. Inspector A worked for 14 consecutive days from February 11 to 24, 2012, and after having one day off, the inspector worked again for 14 consecutive days from February 26 to March 10, 2012 (the day of the suicide). Each of these periods of consecutive work included five on-duty shifts, and Inspector A also worked an average of 5 hours and 42 minutes on the off-duty day after each on-duty shift. (4) Around December 2011, Inspector A took a stress test, which had been introduced at the Shizuoka Prefectural Police Department, and received an overall rating of E (very bad), which was the worst possible rating. Inspector A notified the community police division chief of this result but no measures were taken to address the situation. As of early March 2012 at the latest, Inspector A had developed a mental disorder, including a depressive episode. (5) With regard to the recognition of an accident that occurred in line of public duty in cases where a request for recognition of a public duty accident is filed under the Regulations for Enforcement of the Local Public Officers Accident Compensation Act by alleging that a mental disorder was caused by public duty, the President of the Fund for Local Government Employees' Accident Compensation issued a notice to the heads of the branches of the Fund, titled "Regarding the Recognition of Mental Disorders as Public Duty Accidents" (Notice Chi-Ki-Ho No. 61 of March 16, 2012; referred to below as the "Recognition Criteria"). In the Recognition Criteria, one of the requirements for recognition as a disease that falls under item (ix) in Appended Table 1 of the same Regulations was specified as follows: "the affected employee is found to have suffered an intense physical and mental burden due to work during the period of approximately six months before the onset of the covered disease." According to the criteria, "having suffered an intense physical and mental burden due to work" specifically refers to engaging in work involving the following events: "(1) encountering a life-threatening accident"; and (2) "any other event that causes an intense physical and mental burden." As one of the cases where "(2) any other event that causes an intense physical and mental burden" can be determined to have taken place, the criteria indicate the case "where the affected employee is found to have worked overtime for approximately 100 or more hours per month due to performing qualitatively excessive work during a period of one month or longer immediately before the onset of the disease (this description is referred to below as the "Description"). Depressive episodes are included in the scope of diseases covered by the Recognition Criteria. 3. Based on the facts mentioned above, the court of prior instance determined as summarized below, and dismissed the appellants' claim. In addition to the work as the head of the Central Police Box, Inspector A engaged in the patrols in relation to the serial burglaries, the work as an on-the-job training instructor, the handover work, and the Preparation for the Training Program, but the inspector cannot be deemed to have "performed qualitatively excessive work" as referred to in the Description because of having engaged in those kinds of work, and therefore it is difficult to find a reasonable causal relationship between Inspector A's suicide and the work the inspector engaged in at the Shizuoka Prefectural Police Department. It is also difficult to say that people who were superiors of Inspector A (referred to below as "Inspector A's superiors"), including the community police division chief, could have foreseen in a concrete and objective manner that Inspector A would become physically and mentally ill due to the work assigned to them at the Shizuoka Prefectural Police Department and finally commit suicide. Consequently, the appellee is not liable to compensate for damage under Article 1, paragraph (1) of the State Redress Act with regard to Inspector A's suicide. 4. However, the abovementioned determination by the court of prior instance cannot be upheld, for the following reasons. (1) It is reasonable to consider that an employer, in assigning work to a worker employed thereby and managing such work, has a duty of care to ensure that the worker's physical and mental health would not be impaired due to the excessive accumulation of fatigue and psychological burden resulting from the performance of the assigned work, and that the person with the authority to direct and supervise the worker in course of duties on behalf of the employer should exercise their authority in line with the employer's duty of care mentioned above (see 1998 (O) 217 and 218, the judgment of the Second Petty Bench of the Supreme Court of March 24, 2000, Minshu Vol. 54, No. 3, at 1155). There is no reason for interpreting this principle differently for the relationship between a prefecture and a police officer of the prefectural police department established by that prefecture. In determining whether that prefecture is liable to compensate for damage under Article 1, paragraph (1) of the State Redress Act on the grounds that the person with the authority to direct and supervise that police officer in the course of duties has breached the abovementioned duty of care in exercising that authority, various circumstances concerning the work in which the police officer engaged should be considered comprehensively. In doing so, the findings presented in the Recognition Criteria may be taken into consideration, but the failure to meet the requirements specified in the Recognition Criteria does not immediately lead to negating the liability to compensate for damage mentioned above. (2) According to the facts mentioned above, Inspector A, during the period of about one month immediately before the suicide, engaged in the work as an on-the-job training instructor assigned at the Shizuoka Prefectural Police Department, in addition to the work as the head of the Central Polic Box that the inspector had performed since before that, and the inspector also conducted the patrols in relation to the serial burglaries and engaged in the Preparation for the Training Program, which was different in content from the work as the head of the Central Police Box. As a result, the number of overtime hours worked by Inspector A in the month immediately before the suicide more than doubled from approximately 43 hours in the previous month to over 112 hours, and it can be said that the amount of work that Inspector A had been performing during the period immediately before the suicide had increased significantly because several other kinds of work that involved a considerable burden had been assigned to the inspector in addition to the previously assigned work. In addition, while working in three shifts, Inspector A worked for 14 consecutive days two times with only one day off in-between during the month immediately before the suicide. Each of these periods of consecutive work included five on-duty shifts which were individually over 24 hours in length, and moreover, Inspector A also worked for a considerable amount of time on the off-duty day after each on-duty shift. In view of such manner of working, it can be said that the work Inspector A was performing during the period immediately before the suicide caused the inspector to suffer a considerable amount of accumulated fatigue and psychological burden. According to the above, it can be said that Inspector A engaged in excessive work that could have led to the onset of a mental disorder during the abovementioned period. There are no circumstances, other than such work, that should be considered to have contributed to the onset of the depressive episode that Inspector A developed. Accordingly, it is appropriate to find that it is highly probable to affirm a relationship in which Inspector A's engagement in the excessive work at the Shizuoka Prefectural Police Department led to Inspector A's development of a mental disorder and the resulting suicide. Inspector A's superiors were in the position where they should necessarily know that Inspector A had been appointed as an on-the-job training instructor and selected as a participant in the Training Program, while serving as the head of the Central Police Box within the jurisdiction where the serial burglaries had occurred. Moreover, they had access to the logbooks in the Central Police Box, and the community police division chief had received overtime work performance reports from Inspector A. There are no circumstances that would suggest that Inspector A's superiors nevertheless could not have known the specific conditions of the work that Inspector A engaged in. Therefore, it should be said that Inspector A's superiors could have been aware that Inspector A had engaged in excessive work that objectively could cause the onset of a mental disorder. It was widely known at the time when Inspector A was working at the Central Police Box that if a worker continues to work for long hours on working days and suffers from the excessive accumulation of fatigue and psychological burden, their physical and mental health may be at risk, and that if a worker develops a mental disorder, there is a possibility that suicidal ideation may occur as a symptom of the disorder. Furthermore, the community police division chief knew that Inspector A received the worst possible rating in the stress test that the inspector had taken about three months before the suicide. Therefore, it should be said that Inspector A's superiors could have been aware that if no measures were taken to reduce the burden on Inspector A, such as adjusting the inspector's work appropriately, there is a possibility that Inspector A would become physically and mentally ill and develop a mental disorder and finally commit suicide. Despite this, Inspector A's superiors did not take any concrete measures to reduce the burden on Inspector A. (3) Given the above, it should be said that Inspector A's superiors, as persons with the authority to direct and supervise Inspector A in the course of duties, had a duty of care in exercising the authority to ensure that the inspector's physical and mental health would not be impaired due to the excessive accumulation of fatigue and psychological burden resulting from the performance of the assigned work, but failed to fulfill such duty of care, and as a result, Inspector A developed a mental disorder and finally committed suicide. Therefore, the appellee should be held liable to compensate the appellants under Article 1, paragraph (1) of the State Redress Act for the damage the appellants suffered as a result of Inspector A's suicide, on the grounds that Inspector A's superiors breached the abovementioned duty of care. 5. Contrary to the above, the court of prior instance found that it is difficult to find a reasonable causal relationship between the work that Inspector A engaged in and the inspector's suicide simply because that work does not fall within the category of "qualitatively excessive work" as referred to in the Description, and on the assumption of this finding, it determined that the appellee is not liable to compensate for damage as mentioned above. However, this determination by the court of prior instance contains a violation of law or regulation that has clearly influenced the judgment. The counsel's arguments are well-grounded, and the judgment in prior instance should inevitably be quashed. The case is hereby remanded to the court of prior instance for further examination as to the damage suffered by the appellants and the amount thereof. For the reasons stated above, the Court unanimously decides as set forth in the main text of the judgment. There is a concurring opinion by Justice MIURA Mamoru. The concurring opinion by Justice MIURA Mamoru is as follows. I would like to state my opinion as a supplement regarding the approach of taking into consideration the findings presented in the recognition criteria for public duty accidents suffered by local public employees. An employer, in assigning work to workers it employs and managing such work, has a duty of care to ensure that the workers' physical and mental health would not be impaired due to the excessive accumulation of fatigue or psychological burden resulting from the performance of the assigned work. This rule also applies to the relationship involving public employees' work. It is based on the findings such as that if a worker or public employee continues to work long hours on working days or duty days and suffers from the excessive accumulation of fatigue and psychological burden, their physical and mental health may be at risk. Compensation for a public duty accident under the Local Public Officers Accident Compensation Act covers a "mental and behavioral disorder or its annexed disease that occurred due to engaging in jobs involving an intense mental or physical burden" (Article 1-2, Appended Table 1, item (ix) of the Regulations for Enforcement of the Local Public Officers Accident Compensation Act), and accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act and payment of insurance proceeds under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act cover a "mental and behavioral disorder or its annexed disease due to jobs involving excessive mental tension" (Article 35, Appended Table 1-2, item (ix) of the Ordinance for Enforcement of the Labor Standards Act). These arrangements for accident compensation seem to have in common the fact that they are based on the abovementioned findings. In connection with the recognition required for the compensation mentioned above, the Recognition Criteria have been specified regarding public duty accidents suffered by local public employees, and the circular notice titled "Regarding the Recognition Criteria for Mental Disorders Caused by Psychological Burden" (Circular Notice Kihatsu 0901 No. 2 of September 1, 2023, issued by the Director-General of the Labour Standards Bureau of the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare; referred to below as the "Industrial Accident Recognition Criteria") has been issued regarding occupational diseases suffered by workers. These sets of criteria may be deemed to have rationality to a certain degree in light of medical findings of mental disorders, etc. In determining whether a local public entity is liable for compensation for damage under Article 1, paragraph (1) of the State Redress Act or due to the breach of the duty of care for safety in relation to a public employee's work, it is necessary to comprehensively consider various circumstances concerning the work in which the local public employee engaged, and in doing so, it may be possible to take into consideration the findings presented in the Industrial Accident Recognition Criteria as well as the Recognition Criteria. However, the abovementioned arrangements of compensation are systems based on no-fault liability for risk, which is different in purpose from the abovementioned liability to compensate for damage. The sets of criteria mentioned above are not prescribed by laws or regulations. Therefore, even if the findings presented in these sets of criteria may be taken into consideration, they should not be applied formally but should be taken into consideration only as a finding under the rule of thumb. In relation to this case, as one of the cases where "any other event that causes an intense physical and mental burden" can be determined to have taken place, the Recognition Criteria indicate the case "where the affected employee is found to have worked overtime for approximately 100 or more hours per month due to performing qualitatively excessive work during a period of one month or longer immediately before the onset of the disease." At the same time, the Recognition Criteria also indicate the case "where the affected employee is found to have suffered a work burden equivalent to" the above. These are interpreted as suggesting that the degree of the burden should be assessed in consideration of not only the qualitative excessiveness of the assigned work and the number of overtime hours worked but also various other related circumstances. In addition, the Industrial Accident Recognition Criteria also indicate examples of the intensity of the psychological burden of specific events in relation to the requirement that "the affected employee is found to have suffered an intense psychological burden due to work," including examples related to the quantity and quality of work that are relevant to this case. These examples are also considered to include the suggestion that the degree of the burden should be assessed in light of these examples and in consideration of various other related circumstances. It is appropriate to take into account the abovementioned purport when taking into consideration the findings presented in the abovementioned sets of criteria.

Justice MIURA Mamoru Justice KUSANO Koichi Justice OKAMURA Kazumi Justice OJIMA Akira