[G02-P03] Reconsideration of the Cause of the Accident Given in the Tsunami Judgment of Okawa Elementary School
Keywords:responsibility of scientists, Okawa Elementary School Accident Investigation Committee, school disaster prevention, subsidiarity principle in local government, large tsunami in 869 and 1611, Responsibility of Miyagi Prefecture
The judgment of the Sendai High Court of April 26, 2018 became final and binding on October 11, 2019, with the Supreme Court's dismissal of the appeal filed by the defendant. The evidence collected by the plaintiffs, including the bereaved families, and the important testimonies of the persons concerned in the trial revealed the causes of the disaster until March 11, 2011, which was a great achievement of the trial. It was found that the life of the child would have been saved if the defendants, Ishinomaki City and Miyagi Prefecture, had taken measures against the earthquake off the coast of Miyagi Prefecture.
However, in a civil trial for the purpose of determining whether or not the accused is liable for damages, no fact-finding can be made that goes back to a deeper background cause. It has not been confirmed yet what measures taken by Miyagi Prefecture and the Japanese government to complement Ishinomaki City made the movement of teachers imperfect. For future school and regional disaster prevention, investigation and sharing of the disaster cause seem to be important.
However, in Ishinomaki City and Miyagi Prefecture after the judgment became final, both the mayors and the governor seem to be reluctant to investigate the cause and prevent recurrence. The Governor of Miyagi Prefecture rejected the proposal of Ishinomaki City Mayor, who requested Miyagi Prefecture to bear an appropriate burden, and said that the responsibility for compensation lies with Ishinomaki City. As the result, the division between the disaster inhabitants of Ishinomaki City continues.
Miyagi Prefecture, which started the 4th earthquake damage estimation in the summer of 2010, decided to exclude the two great historical tsunamis (869 Jogan, 1611 Keicho) from the countermeasures. The lives of many victims would have been protected if the historical fact that Ishinomaki Plain and Sendai Plain were flooded as much as 3 to 4 km from the coastline had been conveyed to the inhabitants as the assumption of local governments. It cannot be said that Miyagi Prefecture has no responsibility for the disaster.
Documents related to the process of Miyagi Prefecture's removal of historical tsunamis from its countermeasures were obtained through a request for disclosure. Together with hearing from expert committee members and persons in charge at that time and related information, large causes of disaster are approached. For disaster prevention education and disaster prevention measures to be promoted through cooperation between the prefecture and the city, and for the resolution of the division between inhabitants, the investigation of the background causes should be indispensable.
However, in a civil trial for the purpose of determining whether or not the accused is liable for damages, no fact-finding can be made that goes back to a deeper background cause. It has not been confirmed yet what measures taken by Miyagi Prefecture and the Japanese government to complement Ishinomaki City made the movement of teachers imperfect. For future school and regional disaster prevention, investigation and sharing of the disaster cause seem to be important.
However, in Ishinomaki City and Miyagi Prefecture after the judgment became final, both the mayors and the governor seem to be reluctant to investigate the cause and prevent recurrence. The Governor of Miyagi Prefecture rejected the proposal of Ishinomaki City Mayor, who requested Miyagi Prefecture to bear an appropriate burden, and said that the responsibility for compensation lies with Ishinomaki City. As the result, the division between the disaster inhabitants of Ishinomaki City continues.
Miyagi Prefecture, which started the 4th earthquake damage estimation in the summer of 2010, decided to exclude the two great historical tsunamis (869 Jogan, 1611 Keicho) from the countermeasures. The lives of many victims would have been protected if the historical fact that Ishinomaki Plain and Sendai Plain were flooded as much as 3 to 4 km from the coastline had been conveyed to the inhabitants as the assumption of local governments. It cannot be said that Miyagi Prefecture has no responsibility for the disaster.
Documents related to the process of Miyagi Prefecture's removal of historical tsunamis from its countermeasures were obtained through a request for disclosure. Together with hearing from expert committee members and persons in charge at that time and related information, large causes of disaster are approached. For disaster prevention education and disaster prevention measures to be promoted through cooperation between the prefecture and the city, and for the resolution of the division between inhabitants, the investigation of the background causes should be indispensable.