The Supreme Court showed consideration to limits on parents' responsibility for their children's actions when it ruled that parents are not responsible for an accident in which a soccer ball that their elementary school-age son kicked caused an elderly motorcyclist to fall off his bike.

The Civil Code stipulates that if children who lack capacity to take responsibility cause accidents, their guardians must take responsibility on their behalf. According to the law, guardians are exempted from liability if they can prove that they did not neglect their oversight responsibility. However, courts had broadly interpreted oversight responsibility and held guardians such as parents responsible for accidents caused by children they are supposed to supervise to place priority on extending relief to victims.

The latest ruling by the top court is the first one that recognized that there are limits to parents' responsibility for such unpredictable accidents. It is extremely difficult to make sure that family members can watch over children around the clock as a result of social diversification and an increase in nuclear families comprised of couples and their children. It is understandable that the Supreme Court concluded that it is difficult to hold guardians responsible for an accident that could not have been predicted.

The accident in question occurred in 2004 when a then 11-year-old, sixth-grade boy was practicing free kicks on the playground of an elementary school in Ehime Prefecture after class. A ball kicked by the boy flew over a 1.3-meter-high gate onto a road outside the school premises. An 80-year-old motorcyclist who happened to pass the scene fell off his bike while trying to avoid hitting the ball. He suffered fractured legs and became bed-ridden. The victim died about a year and four months later.

The bereaved family of the victim sued the parents of the boy for compensation. A district court recognized that the boy was at fault and ordered his parents to pay over 11 million yen in damages to the plaintiff, a ruling upheld by a high court.

In overturning the lower court decisions, the Supreme Court determined that free-kick training usually does not pose any danger to other people. The court then ruled that parents can be held responsible for an accident caused by such a practice only in special cases, such as those wherein the outcome could be clearly predicted.

Since the top court ruled on this particular case, its conclusion cannot generally apply to other similar cases. If the accident had occurred as a result of the boy fooling around, the top court might have handed down a different decision.

Still, it is of great significance that the top court showed certain consideration to the position of parents who supervise their children. Emphasis is often placed on families' responsibility for their children in society. However, it is also indispensable for schools and regional communities to play a role in watching over and bringing up children.

The latest case occurred on a school playground. As such, one cannot help but wonder whether higher fences and gates could have been erected to prevent balls from flying outside.

There are many parks where playing with balls is prohibited. Such being the case, it is only natural that children want to freely kick balls on school playgrounds after class. Adults, including schoolteachers, should play a part in creating an environment in which schoolchildren can enjoy playing with balls on the premises of schools.

In the latest ruling, the top court only exempted parents from responsibility for an accident caused by their child under certain conditions. Apart from parents, children will also be required to compensate for accidents if children cause them because they violated social rules or traffic regulations. It must be kept in mind that it is important for parents to discipline their children in an appropriate manner.