53 2010 75 87 Taniguchi Satoshi In Japan it seems to be said that the judicial precedent they can make it the ground to reduce compensation the victim s predisposition in tort or default on an obligation is totally accepted. However the cases that forms the precedent theory are almost traffic accident cases. Then is the theory really applicable to another area of cases? On this paper it is insisted that the theory is not applicable to the case of worker s accident. Because in the relation of victim s predisposition, the case of worker s accident has different history, contents and background from the case of traffic accident. Especially, in the case of traffic accident there exist peculiarity. That is the victim and the assailant are non-communicator and have equality in the sense of the participant of traffic. In the contract, in the case of worker s accident employee and employer are the information-exchanger and have no equality. And final purpose of this paper is to cast a doubt against the trend that the theory of the precedent about victim s predisposition has already built up. 18 325 2002 41 Jurist19 291 15
53 2010 722 63 2142 243 722 2546 400 722 1477 42 722 63 722 2008 373 No.1281 139 10 29 1603 1173 11 14 10 29 875 502474 22 2010 722 63 20 272003 155
12 24541155 41 715 49 30957 374 193 185
53 2010 16 271888 147 17 251895 99 17 311912 40
131774 154 14 23 No.852 73 15 25 No.849 87 a 15 29 No.858 93 418 418
53 2010 17 16 No.893 65 s 12 18No.1056 202 No.796 62 11 19
13 No.811 42 40 d 11 281703
53 2010 13 12 18No.1107 92 a 20 272003 155No.1267 156
10 11 11 281702 88 140 92 418 50 418 50 No.644 132 81116 10 722 226 219 11 139 557
53 2010 17 211972 117 MDS 418 MDS 17 26No.1200 207 722 25 s
16 29 No.882 75 13 16 15 No.879 22 d
53 2010 11 311699 114 100 50