Chapter 6 addresses the types of remedies or relief that plaintiffs may obtain when asserting a public nuisance claim for public mass tort harms. In the original understanding of public nuisance as a criminal offense, remedies were limited to fines or a criminal sentence. Traditionally at common law, plaintiffs who prevailed on a public nuisance claim were entitled to an abatement of the nuisance, or an injunction to enjoin continuation of the nusiance, for example closure of a noxious factory or removal of a higway obstruction. The chapter then documents the gradual expansion of public nusiance remedies in the 21st century to embrace the concept of public nusiance abatement funds, whereby offeding defendants are required to pay large sums of money into a abatement fund to cover the cost to municipalities for services involved in abating the nusiance. The chapter additionally discusses the problem of the ability of individuals to obtain compensation apart from the group remedy, through satisfaction of the special injury rule. The exposition chronicles the inconsistent and confusing judicial application of the special injury rule.

Even though the three different judgments rendered in Kyoto Korean Elementary School – one criminal, by Kyoto District Criminal Court, and two civil, by Kyoto District Court and the Osaka High Court – are generally all perceived to be responses to the hate speech demonstrations that targeted the school, there is a significant difference between the three. This comparative analysis of the three judicial rulings offers important insights into how best victimization might be addressed through judicial responses. The reaction of the teachers and parents of the school exposes the limitations of a punitive approach in terms of restoring the trust of a victims in a majority Japanese community and a sense of inclusion within that community. While relationships are built over generations by shared understanding of the history of the minority Zainichi ethnic group in Japan, the punitive approach acts as a barrier to that understanding, undermining the trust so built. This chapter therefore suggests that the compensatory approach in tort, in line with the position of the Japanese Supreme Court, is likely to be more effective in remedying damage and restoring trust.

This chapter considers the principal categories of damages which typically arise for discussion (if not for application) in the tort of negligence: compensatory damages (including those awarded in the event of a tortiously-caused death); aggravated damages; exemplary damages; nominal damages; and restitutionary damages. The chapter does not purport to give an exhaustive treatment of the subject of damages in negligence, nor does it cover the manner in which damages may be paid (e.g., via lump sums, structured settlements, and periodic payments).1 Instead, it focuses on key heads of damage, terminology, and some of the controversial issues associated with these categories.