In 2014, the government and Nagano said that it was inappropriate to judge that some bereaved families did not raise the eruption alert level in advance over the eruption of Mt. Ontake, which had 63 dead and missing. In a trial seeking compensation from the prefecture, the Matsumoto branch of the Nagano District Court dismissed the complaint, saying, "It cannot be said that the Japan Meteorological Agency was obliged to immediately raise the eruption alert level."

Eight years ago, in September 2014, Mt. Ontake, which straddles Nagano and Gifu prefectures, erupted, killing and missing 63 people.



A total of 32 people, including some bereaved families, said, "We observed a volcanic earthquake that exceeded the standard before the eruption, but the Japan Meteorological Agency neglected to raise the eruption alert level from 1 to 2, and it was damaged." We were seeking compensation of 376 million yen for the government and Nagano prefecture, which had left the broken seismograph.



In response, the government said, "The accuracy of eruption prediction technology is still inadequate. It cannot be said that the JMA's decision-making process at that time, which did not raise the eruption alert level, was extremely irrational." I asked him to dismiss the complaint.



In a ruling on the 13th, Judge Yamashiro of the Matsumoto branch of the Nagano Distruct Court said, "The number of volcanic earthquakes is a guideline for raising the eruption alert level, but other factors are also comprehensively judged at that time. I couldn't say that I had an immediate obligation to raise the eruption alert level, "he dismissed the plaintiff's complaint.

Proceedings

September 2014, eight years ago.



Mt. Ontake, which straddles Nagano and Gifu prefectures, erupted, killing and missing 63 people, making it the worst eruption disaster after the war.



In January 2017, more than two years after the eruption, 11 of the five bereaved families who died in the eruption did not raise the eruption alert level before the eruption and left the seismograph near the summit unattended. As a result, he filed a lawsuit seeking compensation for damages.



The trial began in March of the same year, after which additional injured persons and other bereaved families filed proceedings.



A total of 32 plaintiffs, including 30 bereaved families and 2 injured, are plaintiffs.



At the trial, 11 witnesses were cross-examined, including documents, including the volcano section chief at the time who was involved in determining the eruption alert level of Mt. Ontake at the Japan Meteorological Agency, the staff who were observing, and experts.



In addition, the bereaved family and the seriously injured have each testified and asked for the responsibility of not raising the alert level and the verification of this eruption disaster.



On the other hand, the national and prefectural governments have requested that the proceedings be dismissed, saying, "The deferment of the eruption alert level is the result of comprehensive consideration, and there is no legal violation."



Twenty-three trials were held for about five years, and the trial was concluded in February.

The main issues of the trial

The main issue is whether the JMA's decision at the time, which left the eruption alert level of Mt. Ontake at 1, was appropriate.



On the plaintiff's side, data showing the expansion of the mountain body was observed when the number of volcanic earthquakes per day exceeded 50, which was one of the guidelines for raising the standard by the Japan Meteorological Agency about two weeks before the eruption. He claims that he should have raised his alert level at least two days before the eruption, which can be evaluated as having been done.



On the other hand, on the national side, the number of volcanic earthquakes is only one of the criteria for level judgment, and there is no reliable data showing the expansion of the mountain body. It's something I've done, and it's not significantly unreasonable. "



On the other hand, the plaintiff argues to the prefecture that it is illegal to leave the two failed seismographs unattended.



In response, the prefecture is demanding that the proceedings be dismissed because it was set up for sabo and there is no legal obligation to observe volcanic activity.