Japanese court rejects damage claims against utility executives over Fukushima disaster
TOKYO (AP) — A Japanese court ruled former executives at the utility managing the tsunami-wrecked Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant were not accountable for the 2011 meltdown crisis and do not need to pay damages to the company.
The Tokyo High Court ruling on Friday reversed a lower court decision in 2022 ordering four former executives of the Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings to pay 13 trillion yen ($90 billion) to the company, saying they had failed to take the utmost safety precautions despite knowing the risks of a serious accident in a major tsunami.
A magitude 9.0 earthquake and tsunami in March 2011 destroyed key cooling systems at the Fukushima Daiichi plant, causing its three reactors to melt down, spreading large amounts of radiation in the area and keeping tens of thousands of residents from returning home due to radioactive contamination and other safety concerns.
The Tokyo District Court ruling three years ago was the only ruling that held the former TEPCO liable for the Fukushima disaster. It upheld the plaintiffs' argument that the executives had neglected to heed experts' long-term tsunami predictions and failed to take adequate tsunami precaution measures soon enough.
The court said, however, the long-term tsunani prediction was not considered pressing data requiring immediate tsunami measures and it was understandable the executives had no sense of urgency from the data they had at that time, Kyodo News reported.
Friday's ruling is a major disappointment for Fukushima residents and anti-nuclear activists seeking the managements' responsibility in nuclear safety.
Plaintiffs and their lawyers criticized the ruling as 'unjust' and said they planned to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Hiroyuki Kawai, a plaintiffs' lawyer, criticized the ruling as 'logically flawed,' saying it means nobody can be held liable for any safety negligence because tsunami and earthquake predictions are still impossible today.
A group of more than 40 TEPCO shareholders filed the lawsuit in 2012 demanding five former executives pay the company 22 trillion yen ($153 billion) in damages. The amount of the 2022 ruling against four of the executives was the highest ever ordered in a lawsuit.
Japan's top court in March found two former TEPCO executives not guilty of negligence over the Fukushima meltdowns, saying a tsunami of the magnitude that hit the plant was unforeseeable. It was the only criminal trial related to the nuclear accident and the only criminal case related to the nuclear accident.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
2 hours ago
- Fox News
US sanctions money laundering network aiding Iran as regime faces nuclear reprimand at IAEA
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctioned some 35 individuals involved in laundering money for Iran on Friday as the administration seeks to make a deal with Iran over its nuclear weapons program. A State Department spokesperson said in a statement that,"This network has laundered billions of dollars through Iranian exchange houses and foreign front companies to sustain Tehran's campaigns of terror that undermine international peace and security and line the pockets of regime elites." Meanwhile, tensions with Iran continue, with the Associated Press reporting that Western powers are considering a resolution at the IAEA that would formally declare Tehran in non-compliance with its nuclear obligations. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi called the move a "strategic mistake" and accused the U.K., France, and Germany of choosing "malign action" over diplomacy. "Mark my words as Europe ponders another major strategic mistake: Iran will react strongly against any violation of its rights," he wrote on X. The draft resolution, expected to be introduced next week, would mark the first time in two decades that Western nations bring such a motion against Iran at the IAEA. As U.S. and Iranian negotiators engage in fragile talks, voices from within Iran reveal a grim paradox: while many citizens desperately seek relief from crushing economic hardship, they fear any deal may only tighten the Islamic Republic's grip on power. "Right now, people in Iran do not have any hope for anything," said a female journalist in Tehran, who spoke anonymously out of fear for her safety. "The economy is collapsing. We sometimes don't have electricity or water. The value of the rial is falling. Life is becoming unlivable." Like many Iranians, she believes an agreement could temporarily ease inflation and halt the country's economic freefall. But she—and many others—fear the unintended consequences. "If the regime reaches a deal, it could become more powerful and more confident in suppressing people. That's what frightens us the most," she said. Under Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran has faced growing unrest at home, triggered by economic pain, political repression, and widespread mistrust. As negotiations proceed, Iranian citizens are watching closely—but not with optimism. WHITE HOUSE URGES IRAN TO ACCEPT NUCLEAR DEAL AS IAEA REPORTS URANIUM ENRICHMENT SPIKE "People in Iran are caught in a dilemma," said another Tehran resident, a man who also requested anonymity. "On one hand, they want the regime to fall. On the other, the economic burden is so heavy that any deal offering relief feels like a lifeline. But the truth is, even if a deal is signed, ordinary people won't benefit. We've seen this before." He pointed to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the Obama-era nuclear agreement that promised economic benefits but, according to many Iranians, never delivered meaningful change for the public. "Only those connected to the regime gained anything," he said. "For the rest of us, life stayed the same." While Iranian leaders claim the nuclear program is peaceful, the U.S. and allies remain concerned about uranium enrichment levels nearing weapons-grade levels. Trump has demanded a full halt to enrichment, while Khamenei insists on retaining it. "I'm a journalist, and we work under extreme censorship," said the woman in Tehran. "We're not allowed to mention U.S. or Israeli military capabilities. We can't publish anything about the talks without approval." She described a system where state censors dictate what reporters can and cannot say—down to the vocabulary. "It's not just the content—it's the individual words. And that makes journalism almost impossible." In the interviews with Fox News Digital, Iranians expressed deep skepticism that Khamenei would abide by any agreement. "He lies," the journalist said bluntly. "What he says publicly is never what he actually does. He manipulates both the public and foreign governments. No one should trust a dictator like him." The man echoed the sentiment. "The regime's survival depends on its hostility toward the U.S. and Israel. If it truly committed to a deal, it would undermine its own ideological foundation. That's why no one believes it can last." Recent months have seen a resurgence of protest activity in Iran, including a growing nationwide strike by truck drivers demanding fair wages and lower fuel prices. Though largely ignored by international media, these strikes follow years of widespread protests—most notably the 2022 "Woman, Life, Freedom" uprising sparked by the death of Mahsa Amini in morality police custody. That movement, along with economic demonstrations in 2019 and 2021, was met with violent crackdowns, mass arrests, and internet blackouts. The pattern has left Iranians wary that any sign of instability is met with brutal suppression. An Iranian student pointed to the truckers' strikes currently roiling parts of Iran as a sign of grassroots unrest. "These strikes are a direct message from the people," he said. "They've been largely ignored by the media, but they are powerful and legitimate. This is how change begins—if it's allowed to."
Washington Post
2 hours ago
- Washington Post
Signal inquiry examines if Hegseth — or an aide — shared attack plans
The Defense Department inspector general's office is examining whether it was Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth or an aide, perhaps acting at his behest, who used Hegseth's account on the unclassified chat application Signal to divulge detailed information about forthcoming air attacks on Yemen, according to people familiar with the Pentagon watchdog's work and communications reviewed by The Washington Post.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Unanimous Supreme Court Affirms That There Is No 'Good' Discrimination
On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that plaintiffs in "majority" groups cannot be forced to clear a higher bar to prove they were discriminated against than minority plaintiffs. The case originated from a heterosexual woman, Marlean Ames, who sued the Ohio Department of Youth Services, which runs the state's juvenile correctional system, after she was passed over for a promotion and subsequently significantly demoted in favor of two gay candidates with less education and experience than herself. Two lower courts ruled against her, arguing that she had failed to clear a higher bar to prove discrimination set for plaintiffs from majority groups. Both courts found that she had not provided "background circumstances" showing that "the agency was the rare employer who discriminates against members of a majority group," according to the Supreme Court Opinion. While the Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of Ames' discrimination claim, they did rule that the lower courts' "background circumstances" standard was unconstitutional and inconsistent with federal civil rights law, which protects all individuals equally, regardless of whether they belong to majority or minority groups. "As a textual matter, Title VII's disparate-treatment provision draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs," Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in the Court's opinion. "By establishing the same protections for every 'individual'—without regard to that individual's membership in a minority or majority group—Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone." In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas noted that he joined Jackson's opinion "in full," adding that he also wanted to "highlight the problems that arise when judges create atextual legal rules and frameworks." Thomas argued that, when courts come up with "atextual requirements," it creates confusion and difficulty enforcing those rules. After a series of high-profile split decisions on key culture war issues, this unanimous decision is a strident affirmation that—regardless of the justices' differences on what constitutes racial discrimination—civil rights laws protect all people equally from discrimination, regardless of what demographic traits they have. The post Unanimous Supreme Court Affirms That There Is No 'Good' Discrimination appeared first on
