午夜剧场

My specialty is civil procedure law. The world of civil litigation is governed by unique rules that differ slightly from common social sense. For example, while self-assertive people might be shunned in society, no one will reproach you in court no matter how desperately you assert yourself. In a trial, it is customary for both the plaintiff and the defendant to assert as many facts as possible that work in their favor; in fact, they are expected to do so. Even if you try to say after the judgment is rendered, "I was too reserved to say it at the time," there are no do-overs. In court, the spirit of humility is not welcomed.

However, there are morals that apply even in the world of litigation. For example, it is said that fabricating non-existent facts is unacceptable. The difficult part is whether it is permissible to hide unfavorable facts. In a television drama from a while ago, the following episode was broadcast: A driver dies in a train derailment, and the bereaved family sues the railway company for damages. The family claims a breach of the duty to ensure workplace safety, arguing that a harsh working environment with excessive labor led to the accident, but the company does not easily agree to compensation. Just as a settlement is finally about to be reached, it is discovered that the cause of the accident was not the driver's overwork, but a brake failure in the train car itself.

Now, the issue I want to raise here is the right or wrong of the company's attempt to cover up the fact that there was a brake failure. In terms of social morality, the conclusion would likely be that the company should not have engaged in a cover-up. Compared to if they had disclosed the brake failure from the start, the damage to the company's image due to the attempted cover-up is inevitable. But what about in the context of a trial? In a courtroom where interests clash, wanting to hide unfavorable facts is a natural human instinct. A defendant who helps an opponent unaware of the brake failure might even seem like a fool. Thinking of it that way, one could say there is no need to reveal unfavorable facts oneself. On the other hand, from the perspective of discovering the truth and ensuring fairness, one could also say it is necessary to reveal unfavorable facts. This is a problem without an easy answer, and I spend my days pondering it from various angles.