[Case Commentary] Lost Earnings of a Child with Hearing Impairment: Osaka High Court Ruling Denying Reduction Based on Disability
In this article, we explain the significance and scope of the Osaka High Court judgment of January 20, 2025, which addressed the calculation of future lost earnings in a case where a child with a hearing impairment (11 years old at the time) died in a traffic accident.
1. Overview of the Case and Points of Social Interest
In 2018, 11-year-old A passed away due to a runaway vehicle driven by a driver who suffered an epileptic seizure. In this lawsuit for damages, the primary point of contention was how to calculate the 'lost earnings' that A would have earned in the future.
Arguments of the Plaintiff (the bereaved family)
For a child who has not yet entered the workforce, the calculation should be based on the generally used 'average wage of all workers'.
Arguments of the Defendant (the perpetrator)
Because A had a hearing impairment, the calculation should be based on the 'average wage of hearing-impaired persons' (approximately 60% of the average for all workers). They argued that the impact of the disability on labor capacity should be taken into account.
The first-instance judgment partially accepted the defendant's argument and set the base income at '85% of the average wage of all workers,' which drew social attention regarding the propriety of disadvantageous treatment based on disability.
2. Court's Decision: From First Instance to High Court
First-instance judgment (Osaka District Court)
Acknowledging that A's disability would have a certain impact on labor capacity, the court determined the base income to be '85% of the average wage of all workers'.
Appellate judgment (Osaka High Court)
Overturning the first-instance judgment, the court determined that it was appropriate to use 100% of the 'average wage of all workers'. The reasons emphasized by the High Court are as follows.
[The late A's abilities]
Although A had severe hearing loss, A could understand conversations at a moderate hearing loss level when wearing hearing aids.
A's reading, writing, and academic ability were age-appropriate and reached an average level.
A had a high motivation for communication and was actually able to interact actively with others.
[Technological and Social Changes]
The performance of hearing aids is improving dramatically, such as through the introduction of AI technology.
With the development of legislation for persons with disabilities and a deepening of social understanding, social barriers are being removed through reasonable accommodation.
[Conclusion]
Based on these points, it was evaluated that Person A "cannot be said to have limited labor capacity and was fully capable of working under the same conditions as a person without hearing impairment." Therefore, it was concluded that there is no need to reduce the base income in the calculation of lost earnings.
3. Commentary on this judgment and future prospects
Groundbreaking judgment and its significance
This judgment holds great significance in that it rejects the stereotype that "income is low because of a disability" regarding hearing impairment, which has historically been treated in a discriminatory manner even under the law, and concretely evaluated the individual's unique abilities, motivation, and changes in technology and society. It can be said that this judgment is the result of the plaintiff's diligent efforts in providing evidence.
Scope of this judgment (to what extent it will have an impact)
On the other hand, it is necessary to be aware that this judgment **does not guarantee that the lost earnings of all persons with disabilities will not be reduced**.
Ultimately an individual and specific judgment: The High Court made detailed findings regarding Person A's high communication skills and academic ability, which significantly influenced the conclusion. If the individual had been unable to hear even with hearing aids, or if the impairment had extended to language comprehension, the judgment might have been different.
Impact on other disabilities: Based on this logic, in cases involving intellectual or developmental disabilities, which often involve difficulties in communication and learning, the possibility remains that strict judgments will continue to be made in the calculation of lost earnings.
[Supplementary Note] Remarks regarding consolation money
The High Court pointed out that although the lost earnings were increased, the consolation money (a total of 31 million yen in this case) was higher than the general market rate (20 to 25 million yen). This suggests the possibility that the first instance court adjusted the amount of consolation money to compensate for the reduction in lost earnings, and if the consolation money had been reduced by the High Court, the final compensation amount might not have differed significantly from the first instance.
February 28, 2025
Author: Yuta Masuzaki, Attorney at Law
Plus One Law Office
*This commentary is based on publicly available judicial precedents. Please note that the facts recognized in the precedent may differ from the facts that actually occurred.
1. [Summary of the Synopsis]
An 11-year-old girl with a hearing impairment was killed in a traffic accident. A major point of contention in the trial was how to calculate the income she would have earned had she lived (lost earnings). The perpetrator's side argued that it should be calculated based on the average wage of hearing-impaired individuals (about 60% of that of able-bodied individuals), and the first-instance court partially accepted this argument, ruling for a reduction to 85% of the average wage for able-bodied individuals.
However, the bereaved family, dissatisfied with this, appealed. The High Court issued a groundbreaking ruling: “An individual's abilities and potential should not be judged solely by the attribute of disability.” By specifically evaluating the girl's excellent learning and communication skills, as well as advancements in technology such as hearing aids, the court overturned the first-instance judgment and delivered a reversal ruling that recognized the “average wage of all workers”—the same as that for able-bodied individuals—as the basis for calculation. This is a case that has cast an important stone, challenging society to consider the rights and potential of people with disabilities.
2. [5 Important Appeal Points]
The value of this case commentary and the five points you should especially know are as follows.
[Challenging Stereotypes] The judiciary clearly states that “disability does not equal reduced income”!
This is a groundbreaking ruling with a strong message that it is not permissible to underestimate future potential solely because of a disability.[A Perspective Respecting the “Individual”] Evaluated by the abilities of “the person themselves,” not by the “attribute” of disability.
The court specifically recognized how hard the deceased worked and the high level of ability she possessed. It demonstrated the ideal approach of respecting each person's individuality and potential.[Judgment Looking Toward the Future] Actively considering technological evolution and social change.
The judgment incorporates a future-oriented perspective, noting that social and technical barriers surrounding disabilities are decreasing, such as the evolution of AI-equipped hearing aids and legal improvements.[Groundbreaking Reversal Ruling] Overcoming a difficult situation to achieve a complete victory.
This case, which overturned an unfavorable first-instance ruling to win the full amount of lost earnings, serves as a great source of hope and a guide for parties and supporters in similar positions.[Deep Insight by Experts] Carefully explaining the “scope and limitations” of the ruling.
Through calm analysis unique to experts, this commentary promotes an accurate understanding of the ruling, noting that it is not a panacea and that different judgments may be possible for other types of disabilities.
3. [Feedback FAQ]
We have summarized questions likely to be received from those who read this commentary and their answers.
Q1. Should we consider that from now on, the lost earnings of people with disabilities will be calculated in the same way as those of able-bodied people because of this ruling?
A1. No, unfortunately, it cannot be said that this will immediately be the case in all matters. This ruling is an “individual judgment” based on the specific recognition that the deceased Ms. A's learning and communication skills were extremely high. There is no doubt that it has cast a stone at the trend of easily reducing amounts based on disability, but the possibility remains that strict judgments will continue to be made in cases involving the degree or type of disability, especially where communication difficulties are involved.
Q2. Since no one knows the future income of a deceased child, isn't it harsh on the perpetrator's side to conclude it is the same as an able-bodied person?
A2. As you say, proving the future is difficult for everyone. However, compensation for damages is based on the idea of evaluating “the profit that would have been obtained had the accident not occurred” as fairly as possible. The important point of this ruling is the judgment that it is unjust to nip the bud of that potential from the beginning because of a disability just because the future is uncertain. It directly acknowledged the possibility that even with a disability, one could be as active as an able-bodied person depending on the individual's efforts and social changes.
Q3. The topic of “consolation money” came up in the commentary; what does it mean that the final amount received by the bereaved family might have hardly changed between the first instance and the High Court?
A3. That is a sharp observation. While the High Court increased the lost earnings, it implicitly suggested that the consolation money (31 million yen) recognized by the first-instance court was higher than the general market rate. This means one can interpret that “the first-instance court may have increased the consolation money to balance the conclusion because it had to lower the lost earnings.” The commentary points out that if the High Court had reduced the consolation money to the market rate, the total compensation might have ended up not being much different from the first-instance result, as the reduction would have been offset by the increase in lost earnings.
Q4. This was a case of hearing impairment, but if a child with an intellectual or developmental disability were the victim, would this ruling be a reference?
A4. It would be a reference, but it might be more difficult to reach the same conclusion. This is because the High Court made “Ms. A's language and communication skills being high for her age” a key pillar of its judgment. Therefore, in cases of disabilities that involve difficulties in communication or learning itself, such as intellectual or developmental disabilities, the hurdle for arguing and proving that the individual can demonstrate labor capacity equivalent to an able-bodied person into the future is, unfortunately, considered to remain high.
Q5. If my family were to be involved in a similar accident, what should I prepare to obtain a favorable result like this ruling?
A5. The victory in this case boils down to the plaintiff's “careful proof of the deceased's abilities.” To prepare for the worst, school report cards and test results are of course important, but communication notebooks with teachers, essays or diaries written by the individual, and testimonies from friends and teachers around them saying things like “She was enthusiastic about studying” or “She communicated brightly with everyone” become extremely important evidence. The key is how much objective evidence you can collect that specifically shows that even with a disability, the individual had the motivation and ability not to be defeated by it.
#TrafficAccident
#CompensationForDamages
#LostEarnings
#OsakaHighCourtRuling
#HearingImpairment
#RightsOfPeopleWithDisabilities
#LaborCapacity
#Diversity
#CaseCommentary
#Lawyer