免責同意書の問題

※ここでの感想などはあくまで個人的なものにすぎません。

　ジャパンタイムス（The Japan Times）平成14年8月2日号に、ダイビングの時の免責同意書（最近では別の名称を使っている場合もありますが）の問題を考える記事が掲載されました。

　記事は、「Disclaimers cause waves in scuba business」というタイトルの署名記事でした。
　記事はジャパンタイムスのホームページ（http://www.japantimes.co.jp/start.htm・・・リンクの許可あり）にある、Search Archivesを使って検索すれば読めます。

　ここではPADIの免責同意書についての見解や、インストラクターの方の意見、加えて、ダイビングマスコミ関係者の意見も書かれています。私も求めに応じて、この記事を書いた記者の方の取材を受けました。
　私は英語は得意でないので、全て日本語で話しました。

　この記事では、平成12年12月に出た、大阪地裁の、免責同意書無効の判決を紹介しています。
　
　免責同意書については、PADIが免責同意書の名称を変更して現在使っているものを、「It is now called the Assumption of Risk Agreement.」として紹介しています。この意味は、私のつたない英語力でも、「危険の引き受け（Assumption of Risk）の同意（Agreement）書」と読めます。
　日本スポーツ法学会でも、アメリカの判例でも、「危険の引き受け（Assumption of Risk）」についてはさまざまな議論がされています。これについては、拙著「ダイビングの事故・法的責任と問題」（杏林書院）に、詳しく書いていますので、そちらをご覧下さい。PADIの、新しい免責を求める書類を「the Assumption of Risk Agreement」と呼ぶのが正規の英語表現であれば、これが、いわゆる「免責同意書」であることを明確に示しているのではと思います。

　さらに免責同意書について、インストラクターの立場での見解についても書いてあります。
「"Even though almost every instructor knows that (the waiver) is invalid in the eyes of the court," it is still used to discourage divers from filing suits, said an instructor with about 2,000 dives over nine years under his belt.」
　これは、免責同意書という法的に無効なものを、あたかも法的に有効であるかごとく印象付けることで、訴訟という法的権利の行使を思いとどまらせることに使っているインストラクターがいるということを示しているのではないでしょうか。
　私は、全てのインストラクターがこのようにしているとは思いませんが、やはりこの点は重要なことですので、できれば民法の専門家からの意見も聞きたいものです。

　この記事は、ダイビング業界の利害関係のフィルターを通した上での記事（フィルターを通した記事では、一見しただけではわかりにくいですが、業界に対して細心の注意や配慮がなされています）ではない上に、匿名で書いた記事でもなく、署名記事という堂々としたものです。そして、消費者契約法を紹介した上で、一般ダイバーにとって非常に重要な、免責同意書について、各立場の方への取材から、それへの意見や見解が交えて紹介してある記事です。そのような意味で、この記事は、画期的な記事だと思います。
　ダイビング以外にも、いろいろな自然相手のレクリエーションスポーツビジネスの場で使用されている免責同意書に関しても、この記事によって考えてべきものがあるのではと思います。
　　
　なお、このページで紹介した引用部分が、私にとって都合の良いところだけの引用ではないかと思われることもあると思います。これは、立場や見方が異なれば当然の考えです。またジャパンタイムスのホームページからこの記事を検索する時間がない方もいると思います。そのような方々のために、以下に、この記事の全文を転載します。
　なお、この転載にあたっては、事前にジャパンタイムス社より、正式に転載の許可をいただいております。

Disclaimers cause waves in scuba business
Recreational divers, industry at odds over where safety responsibility lies

By KAHO SHIMIZU
Staff writer

Recreational scuba divers in Japan are subject to a long-standing, and contentious, industry policy -- signing a waiver to accept all responsibility for whatever happens when they take the plunge.

Although the waiver is a given, diving businesses and divers are at odds over the validity of the disclaimers and what they represent.

"The problem is that the waiver lays all the responsibility on the diver" even though the industry is profiting by providing instruction, said Makoto Nakada, who began studying diving safety issues in 1993 following a serious accident in a dive off Hawaii.

While there are no precise figures for the amateur diver population in Japan, data from the Japan Recreational Diving Industry Association show the number of entry-level certificates issued in the country reached 1,049,728 in 2000, more than four times the 1990 figure of 248,862.

Waivers are common worldwide. In most cases, the contents are direct translations of versions used in the United States that were prepared by recreational membership companies that issue scuba certificates.

Although the wording varies depending on the company, many waivers state that the diver is solely responsible for whatever happens during a dive -- even death. Thus, divers supposedly renounces any right to seek damages from membership firms, dive shops, instructors or guides.

Nakada, now a member of the Japan Sports Law Association, said the problem is not only the terms of the waivers. Many instructors do not give explanations when demanding signatures and the signers do not receive a copy. He said this allows teachers to avoid blame in the name of "customer self-responsibility."

A recent court decision disregarded one such waiver.

In December 2000, the Osaka District Court rejected a guide's claim that he was not obligated, under the terms of the waiver, to compensate the next of kin of a man who died during a dive.

The case involved an entry-level certified diver who drowned as he descended with seven other recreational divers. While acknowledging the 25-year-old victim bore some responsibility for his death, the court ruled that the instructor cannot escape blame for negligence and invalidated the disclaimer.

Yet the ruling did little to halt the use of waivers or change their wording.

However, there has been a gradual change since the Consumer Contract Law, which aims to nullify clauses that exempt businesses from liability for damages, took effect in April 2001.

Many diving membership companies have since begun re-examining the wording of their waivers.

In April 2001, PADI Japan Inc., an affiliate of the world's top recreational diving membership firm, PADI Corp., changed some of the content as well as the title of its disclaimer. It is now called the Assumption of Risk Agreement.

But according to PADI official Yoshihiro Inoue, the original waiver that renounced all the rights of the client was already revised in 1998, even before the Osaka court ruling, due to strong demands from PADI member shops and instructors.

The 1998 version added a clause saying the diver will not file a lawsuit for an accident that is the diver's fault.

"In other words, if an accident is attributed to the instructor, the instructor cannot escape responsibility," Inoue stressed, adding that the 1998 and 2001 versions are almost the same.

Inoue said PADI's document is not aimed at allowing instructors to get away with mistakes.

"On the contrary, it is to raise customer awareness of the risks (of diving)" so they follow instructions, he said.

But even after the changes made by membership firms, the waivers generally have not shaken the image of serving the interests of businesses over divers.

Nakada pointed out that many membership firms and dive shops across Japan still use documents with the contentious wording because the Consumer Contract Law is nonbinding.

"Even though almost every instructor knows that (the waiver) is invalid in the eyes of the court," it is still used to discourage divers from filing suits, said an instructor with about 2,000 dives over nine years under his belt.

But at the same time, the instructor, who spoke on condition of anonymity, partly blamed the situation on the many recreational divers who can't protect themselves.

"Once you are certified as an entry-level diver, you must be able to dive without guides," he said, noting that one aim of the disclaimers is to protect shops and instructors from careless divers who do not have sufficient safety knowledge and tend to blame instructors for any accidents.

Nakada agreed, noting how some divers cut cost and educational corners in their quest for certification.

"If you spare the expense of a good education and don't make an effort to learn, you get what you pay for, and end up with inadequate skills," he said, explaining how some divers remain dependent on guides even after obtaining certification.

However, divers are not the only ones to blame, Nakada said.

Dive shops and instructors who certify people who lack the proper skills, and an industry that allows a defective certification system to continue, are also at fault, he charged.

"Businesses try to attract more recreational divers by saying it is safe, cheap and easy," while leaving their customers lacking in skills, Nakada charged.

"The waivers should not be used as an excuse to defend their lax operations."

An editor of a diving magazine, who asked not to be named, said the waiver argument will not be fully settled as long as the duties of instructors and guides are not clearly spelled out.

He frowns on waivers that renounce all rights of the divers, saying the best way to sort out the problem is to draw a line between businesses' duties and divers' personal responsibilities.

"But the duties of instructors and guides differ in individual cases, so it is difficult to stipulate specific definitions in the disclaimers," he said.

The Japan Times: Aug. 2, 2002
(C) All rights reserved

※転載許可:ジャパンタイムス社

平成14年8月9日

このホームページの内容を、無断で転載などを行なうことは一切禁止します。
直接このページにリンクを張ることはご遠慮ください。