Compensation for Losing Hometowns

In a grouped lawsuit over compensation for the damage caused by severe accident in First Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant, Chiba Regional Court sentenced the owner of the plant, Tokyo Electric Power Company, to pay ¥376 million to 42 plaintiffs on Friday. While the court ordered TEPCO to pay reparations for losing their hometowns, it did not recognize responsibility of the national government that had been dealing with regulation policy for nuclear power generation.

The lawsuit was filed by 45 people in 18 families who had evacuated from Fukushima to Chiba, demanding ¥2.8 billion of compensation. Although TEPCO had been paying ¥7 million for each evacuee from the area where returning home was difficult as compensation for losing hometown, the plaintiffs required ¥20 million for not only those evacuees but those from other suffered area.

Chiba Regional Court found that losing basis for the residents’ ordinary life or homeland on where their personality was built could be a reason for compensation. That idea was applied to the evacuees from the area where was out of difficult-in-returning area but evacuation order was actually issued. It ordered payment between ¥500 thousand and ¥4 million to each evacuee. While the court denied that compensation to voluntary evacuees out of evacuation-ordered area, they were thought as eligible for receiving some compensation, if their decision of evacuation had been reasonable.

In 2013, the government made a guideline for the compensation that each evacuee would receive ¥100 thousand every month and those from difficult-in-returning area would accept additional ¥7 million. The decision of the court realized that the compensation scheme was not enough to compensate the damage of the sufferers. “TEPCO has to compensate with recognition of causality between the psychological pain of losing ordinary life on the land long accustomed to and the accident,” said the sentence.

The court found that the national government could predict by 2006 the occurrence of great tsunami over the land of the plant, if they had properly considered seismic “long-term assessment” in 2002. However, the court also recognized the difficulty of taking necessary measures by March 2011, when East Japan Great Earthquake occurred. It concluded that the missing of exercising its power to order anti-tsunami measures was not extremely unreasonable and illegal.

Frustrated with the conclusion, the plaintiffs decided to appeal to a higher court. “The judges escaped from accusing the national government,” told the leader of other lawsuit in Fukushima, Takashi Nakajima. “If this is so, they will repeat nuclear accidents.” If the government is not responsible for taking measures against nuclear accident, the regulation policy will not be necessary.