[Kumamoto Earthquake] Ordered Back to the Store to Secure Cash, an Employee Was Caught in the Disaster — Now the Company Faces Questions Over Its False Explanation

There was misjudgment and self-protection

The wake for Kurumi Otake, 22, who was killed in an explosion at Aeon Mall Kumamoto, was held on August 2. That day, the president and sales manager of “Habita,” the store selling general goods where Otake had worked, visited her bereaved family.

“If possible, I asked them whether they could put the day’s sales back in the safe—if they were able to,”

they admitted. The sales manager apologized, saying that his judgment had been wrong.

Until then, however, company executives had reportedly given the bereaved family an explanation that could be seen as an attempt at self-protection.

“Another female employee, whom we’ll call A, also died alongside Otake. Initially, the sales manager told Otake’s family that ‘A said she wanted to go back to retrieve her belongings, so the two of them returned to the store.’ He said that because he had heard they were going back to the store, he had asked them, ‘If possible, please put the day’s sales in the safe.’ That was also the explanation given to the media,” said a television station director.

In reality, however, it was the company that instructed the two women to return to the store.

“When the bereaved family, sensing something was off about the explanation, pressed him for answers, the sales manager became flustered and admitted that there had been misjudgment and an attempt at self-protection, and that the company had instructed them to return to the store. Several media cameras and reporters were present during the apology, but because the footage was lengthy, some outlets cut the part where the sales manager gave the false explanation. Our station also did not air it when we reported the story in our initial news broadcast,” said the director.

However, when wide-ranging talk shows and other programs with more airtime reported the sales manager’s false explanation, Habita was flooded with criticism.

Compensation could range from millions to tens of millions of yen

Otake and the others had evacuated immediately and followed Aeon’s disaster-prevention manual, which instructed them not to return to the store. Even if the explosion itself could not have been anticipated, there was still the possibility that walls or ceilings could collapse. It would be understandable if Habita were held accountable for sending employees back into a building following a major earthquake.

Attorney Kenta Morimi of Morimi Law Office explains:

“If a store instructs an employee to return despite knowing that doing so is dangerous, and the employee is subsequently killed or injured as a result, the party responsible could face charges of professional negligence resulting in death or injury under Article 211 of Japan’s Penal Code. If convicted, the offense carries a penalty of up to five years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to one million yen. The key issues would likely include whether the person who gave the instruction could have foreseen the consequences and whether they could have avoided them, as well as whether negligence can be established.

If the bereaved family files a civil lawsuit, the company could also face liability for breach of its duty to ensure employee safety, either as a breach of contract or as a tort. If liability is recognized, compensation could range from several million to tens of millions of yen, depending on factors such as the victim’s expected income and the degree of negligence on the part of the company.”

Because of what the article describes as the company’s misguided decision, driven by an obsession with protecting its profits, the lives of two young people with their futures ahead of them were lost—lives that might otherwise have been saved.