Who Is Liable When an Accident Occurs at a Public Facility Managed by a Private "Designated Manager" in Japan?

Japanese Attorney at Law - Bengoshi L.L.

• 5 min read

Across Japan, a vast number of public facilities—parks, community halls, libraries, and sports arenas—are operated not by government employees but by private companies under the Designated Manager System (指定管理者制度, shitei kanrisha seido). This form of public-private partnership raises a critical question for both the public and the businesses involved: When a tragic accident occurs due to an alleged safety issue at one of these facilities, who is legally responsible for compensating the victim? Is it the private company handling the day-to-day operations, or the local government that owns the property?

This article explores this question of liability through a case study of a fatal accident at a city-owned park. It delves into the legal framework of Japan's State Redress Act, clarifying the enduring responsibility of the government owner and analyzing the objective legal test for what constitutes a "defect" in a public structure—a test that can include not only design flaws but also the failure to upgrade to modern safety standards.

Lawsuits for injuries occurring at public facilities in Japan are governed by Article 2 of the State Redress Act (国家賠償法, Kokka Baishō Hō). This article establishes a special form of liability for harm caused by a "defect in the establishment or management of a public structure" (公の営造物の設置又は管理の瑕疵, ōyake no eizōbutsu no setchi matawa kanri no kashi).

Key elements of this legal framework include:

  • Public Structure (公の営造物, Ōyake no Eizōbutsu): This term is interpreted broadly. It includes not just government buildings but any physical facility or property made available for public use, such as roads, rivers, public squares, and, as in our case study, parks.
  • Strict Liability (無過失責任, Mukashitsu Sekinin): This is the most crucial feature of Article 2. Unlike a standard negligence claim, the victim does not need to prove that the government was negligent or at fault. Liability is imposed if two conditions are met: (1) there was an objective "defect" in the structure, and (2) that defect caused the injury. The government's good intentions or lack of awareness of the defect are not defenses.

The Case Study: A Fatal Accident at a Waterside Park

To see how these principles are applied, consider the following representative case.

The Factual Background

A city establishes a popular "waterside park" (shinsui kōen) featuring a man-made stream. The park is owned by the city, but its daily management is outsourced to a private foundation acting as the Designated Manager. The park is located near several schools and is heavily used by young children.

One summer afternoon, a five-year-old boy slips on the wet tiles lining the stream, falls in, and tragically drowns. An investigation reveals several potential safety hazards:

  • The tiles were known to be very slippery when wet, and the city had received numerous complaints about them over the years.
  • The stream, while mostly shallow, had several unmarked and unexpectedly deep sections of over one meter.
  • The concrete banks of the stream were designed as steep, vertical walls, making it nearly impossible for a small child to climb out on their own.

The child's parents sue the city for damages under Article 2 of the State Redress Act.

Part 1: Who Is Liable? The City or the Private Manager?

The first legal question is who should be the defendant in the lawsuit. While a private company was managing the park, the lawsuit is correctly filed against the city that owns it.

The prevailing legal view in Japan is that even when management of a public facility is outsourced to a Designated Manager, the public entity owner retains ultimate legal responsibility to injured third parties. The core reasoning is that the facility remains a "public facility" under the Local Autonomy Act, and the fundamental duty to ensure its safety for public use rests with the government that established it.

This does not necessarily mean the private manager is entirely free of liability. The manager could potentially be sued separately under Japan's Civil Code (specifically, Article 717, which governs liability for defective structures). However, this does not absolve the city of its direct, strict liability under the State Redress Act. For a victim seeking compensation, suing the government entity is the most direct and secure legal path, as the city's liability is not dependent on proving the private manager's negligence.

In this specific case, the argument against the city is particularly strong because the alleged defects—the slippery tiles, the deep pools, the steep banks—were features of the park's original design and construction. They were "defects in establishment," for which the city, as the original builder and owner, is undeniably responsible.

Part 2: What Constitutes a "Defect"? The "Lack of Ordinary Safety" Test

With the city identified as the proper defendant, the case turns on the central substantive question: did the park have a "defect" (kashi)?

The legal standard, established by the Supreme Court of Japan in a foundational decision on August 20, 1970, is objective: a defect exists if the structure "lacked the safety it would ordinarily be expected to possess" (tsūjō yūsubeki anzen-sei o kaiteita).

"Ordinary safety" is not a static or abstract concept. Its meaning is determined by considering all relevant circumstances, including the facility's purpose, location, and, most importantly, its foreseeable users.

For a waterside park located near elementary schools and kindergartens, it is entirely foreseeable that its primary users will include young children. Therefore, the park's "ordinary safety" must be judged from the perspective of a child. A condition that might be safe for an adult could be a deadly hazard for a five-year-old, and the law requires the government to account for this.

Applying this test to the facts, the court would likely find several defects:

1. Design and Management Defects

The combination of features in the park created a foreseeable trap for a small child.

  • The Deep Spots: The presence of unmarked, 1-meter-deep pools in a stream otherwise designed for children's water play was a hidden danger. The city was aware of these spots but had taken no action, not even posting warning signs. This failure to warn of a known, non-obvious hazard is a classic "defect in management."
  • The Steep Banks: The vertical concrete banks were a design flaw in a park intended for children. It was foreseeable that a small child who fell in would be unable to perform the difficult task of pulling themselves out of the water up a sheer wall.

2. The Failure to Upgrade to Modern Safety Standards

Perhaps the most powerful argument relates to the slippery tiles. The city had known for 15 years, through numerous citizen complaints, that the tiles were hazardous when wet.

While those tiles may have been a standard material when the park was first built, technology and safety standards evolve. The commentary in the case materials notes that in the intervening years, safer, non-slip tiles had been developed and had become common practice for newly constructed waterside parks.

A government's failure to remedy a known hazard by adopting readily available and affordable modern safety technology can itself constitute a "defect." A facility is not judged only by the standards of the day it was built; it must be managed and maintained to meet contemporary expectations of safety. The city’s decision to leave the known slipping hazard unaddressed for years, despite the availability of a solution and the high-risk user base, would be strong evidence that the park "lacked the safety it would ordinarily be expected to possess."

Conclusion

The outsourcing of public facility management to private entities under Japan's Designated Manager System is a widespread and effective model of public-private partnership. However, it does not function as a shield against liability for the government.

When an accident occurs, the public entity that owns the facility remains strictly liable for injuries caused by any "defect" in the structure. The legal test for a defect is objective and user-focused: did the facility lack the level of safety that a foreseeable user, including a vulnerable child, would ordinarily expect?

Crucially, a "defect" is not limited to breakage or disrepair. It can include fundamental design flaws, the failure to warn of hidden dangers, and, significantly, the failure of the government to upgrade a facility to meet contemporary safety standards when known hazards and new solutions exist. This framework ensures that the ultimate responsibility for public safety remains in public hands, holding government accountable for the objective safety of the facilities it provides for its citizens.