The World of Courts and Morals

2019/12/11

My specialization is civil procedure law. The world of civil litigation is governed by unique rules that differ slightly from ordinary social common sense. For example, while assertive people might be frowned upon in society, in court, no one will blame you no matter how desperately you assert yourself. In a trial, it is customary for both plaintiffs and defendants to assert as many facts as possible that work in their favor; in fact, they are expected to do so. Even if you say, "I was too hesitant to speak up then," after a judgment has been rendered, 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 the courts. For example, it is said that fabricating and asserting non-existent facts is unacceptable. The difficult part is whether it is permissible to hide unfavorable facts. In a TV 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 of care for safety in the workplace, arguing that a harsh working environment involving overwork led to the accident, but the company does not easily agree to compensation. Just as negotiations are finally about to be settled, 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-wide attempt to cover up the fact that there was a brake failure. In terms of social morals, 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 courtroom? In a courtroom where interests clash, it is natural human nature to want to hide unfavorable facts; a defendant who does something like "sending salt to the enemy" by informing a plaintiff 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 fairness, it could also be said that there is a need to reveal unfavorable facts. It is a problem without an easy answer, and I spend my days pondering it from various angles.