Limitations regarding the use of quotes
The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
Three taxi drivers and 23 taxi passengers sued the government for failure to enforce smoke-free measures on taxis. Taxi drivers alleged that the Ministry of Transportation and the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare had the duty to enforce smoke-free regulations against private taxi companies. The Court found that defendant did not have the duty to enforce smoke-free measures against taxi companies, but recognized that smoking in taxis harms the health of drivers and passengers and that taxi companies have a duty to protect the health of its drivers and passengers. The Court held that the government shall use its executive power to promote the transition to a smoke-free taxi business. However, the plaintiffs' demands were denied.