Worn down, frustrated and weary of excuses and denials, Ryo Shibuya sat in front of the Buddhist altar at his home in Miyagi Prefecture and apologized to a picture of his dead son.
Worn down, frustrated and weary of excuses and denials, Ryo Shibuya sat in front of the Buddhist altar at his home in Miyagi Prefecture and apologized to a picture of his dead son.
“I’m sorry,” Shibuya said for breaking his promise to uncover the truth behind the death of the 2-year-old.
Shibuya, 31, and many other parents in the Tohoku region have filed civil lawsuits against government officials and other authorities, demanding compensation and explanations for the deaths of their children in the Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami in 2011.
But many plaintiffs are grudgingly agreeing to out-of-court settlements because they have become psychologically drained from the drawn-out judicial process and have abandoned expectations for information about why their children were not saved.
Shibuya’s apology to his son, Ayumu, came on Dec. 6. On Dec. 24, the out-of-court settlement in his lawsuit against the Yamamoto town government was finalized at the Sendai High Court.
“I still have no idea why he died,” Shibuya, a salaried employee, said.
Ayumu and 12 other children were at a town-operated day-care center about 1.5 kilometers from the Miyagi Prefecture coast on March 11, 2011. A center employee realized that the tsunami was approaching and put the children into vehicles to evacuate. But they could not escape the waves, and three of the children were killed.
The burning question for Shibuya was why the children remained at the day-care center for more than an hour after the earthquake struck.
The town government held a meeting about a month after the disaster to provide an explanation.
“We were ordered to wait by the head of the general affairs section (of the town government),” the center employee said.
The town official, however, denied giving such an order.
Over five months, 11 sessions were held with parents, but no consensus was reached on what happened that day.
In November 2011, Shibuya and another family sued the Yamamoto town government for 88 million yen ($731,000) in compensation. Above all, he wanted answers to questions such as: “Was there an instruction to wait? If such an instruction was given, then why? What form should safety measures take?”
The bereaved family of the third victim did not join the lawsuit.
During the trial, the head of the general affairs section of the town government offered no help.
“I have no recollection,” the official repeatedly said.
The district court ruled that the town government official had indeed given the instruction, but the court did not touch upon the reason.
The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ compensation demand, saying the town government could not have foreseen such a tsunami.
The bereaved family members appealed the ruling. But after hearing two oral arguments, the Sendai High Court in September this year recommended a settlement under which the town government would pay 3 million yen to Shibuya.
The settlement recommendation also contained one provision: “The town government will view with seriousness the fact that children died and make efforts for safe day-care services in the future.”
The other family rejected the settlement proposal and will wait for the high court’s ruling in March.
Shibuya decided to accept the settlement, resigned to the fact that courts allow ambiguous testimony.
“There is a limit to further uncovering the truth,” he said. “The only thing we can do is to force the town government to abide by the settlement provision pledging to prevent a recurrence.”
Shibuya, who keeps a photo of Ayumu on his mobile phone, recalled how the child would come over whenever the father was reading a book about his fishing hobby.
“If he had lived, we would have had the opportunity to go fishing together,” Shibuya said.
At least 15 lawsuits have been filed in the Sendai and Morioka district courts by bereaved family members of tsunami victims who died at school or workplaces. The lawsuits have sought to certify the responsibility of those in charge of the facilities.
Settlements or mediation have been reached in five of the cases.
Tatsuro Chiba, a lawyer representing plaintiffs in two of the lawsuits in Miyagi Prefecture, said the settlements reflect the heavy psychological burden placed on bereaved family members.
Chiba said that in addition to their tragic losses and their frustrations in court, the family members may see Internet postings that say “nothing can be done about major disasters” and “the lawsuits are only looking for money.”
Earlier in December, Mika Sato, 39, and other bereaved family members reached a settlement in their lawsuit against the private Hiyori kindergarten in Ishinomaki, Miyagi Prefecture.
The negligence lawsuit was filed in August 2011, five months after Sato’s 6-year-old daughter, Airi, and three other kindergarten pupils were killed in the tsunami.
“While I have not forgiven the principal or teachers, I made the difficult decision to accept the settlement because I felt that would contribute to future disaster management measures,” Sato said on Dec. 12 while in Tokyo to attend a study session organized by lawyers and scholars about school safety.
After the Great East Japan Earthquake struck, a school bus took children from the kindergarten, which was located on higher ground, along a route that passed by the coast.
The lawsuit demanded compensation and an explanation from kindergarten officials on why they let the school bus head toward the sea after sirens warned that a major tsunami was approaching.
During the trial, the principal and kindergarten teacher said they did not remember what happened.
“In court, everyone tries to protect themselves so they do not speak about the truth,” Sato said.
During discussions leading up to the settlement, the kindergarten eventually acknowledged its legal responsibility and its lack of a proper disaster management structure.
The plaintiffs agreed to the settlement proposal on Dec. 3 and vowed to take measures so that other parents would never have to experience their pain.
Before the Dec. 12 study session, Sato visited the education ministry and told officials: “Children can only act on the instructions of adults. Even if schools are built on higher ground, the lives of children cannot be protected when teachers are not properly educated in disaster management.”
After the death of Airi, Sato received a letter from Fatima Kuu, 52, an author and mother of an 11-year-old daughter in Maebashi.
The letter led to a project to create an illustrated book with Airi as the main character, describing the happy days for the Sato family until the disaster struck.
One page will say, “She lived a life of six years very, very, very much.”
Although the court case that lasted for more than three years did not reveal what really happened at the kindergarten, Sato said she hopes the book will be more beneficial.
“I want to pass on the preciousness of life through the story of my daughter who really wanted to live life to the fullest but could not,” Sato said.
Susumu Tsukui, a lawyer who has written about the law and major disasters, explained the difficulties in obtaining testimony to uncover the truth in civil suits.
“Because civil lawsuits could mean defendants must bear the burden of compensation, it is difficult to bring out the truth because witnesses are afraid of taking responsibility,” said Tsukui, who is also vice chairman of a committee for supporting disaster rebuilding under the Japan Federation of Bar Associations.
Tsukui proposed the use of third-party committees to investigate accidents and disasters.
“It might be possible to approach the truth if an environment was established that would allow for talking outside of personal responsibility by, for example, allowing for anonymity or exemption of liability under certain conditions if an individual does speak the truth,” he said.
(This article was written by Norihiko Kuwabara and Yoshinobu Motegi.)