The death of a young woman in Yokohama drew a flood of reactions on social media over the senselessness and unfortunate circumstances of the tragedy.

The woman just happened to be walking on a crowded sidewalk when she was crushed by a student who had either jumped or fallen from an observation deck. Both were killed.

Amid the online cries of shock and statements of sympathy, many social media posters said someone should be held legally responsible and that the woman’s family must receive compensation.

Legal experts, however, cited difficulties on both fronts.

TWO DEATHS

The incident occurred on Aug. 31, when a 17-year-old high school girl fell from Sea-Sky Deck on the 12th floor of JR Yokohama Tower, a commercial complex connected to JR Yokohama Station.

She landed on a 32-year-old female company employee walking in a crowded area in front of the station in Nishi Ward, according to the Kanagawa prefectural police.

The woman was taken to a medical center, where she was confirmed dead due to a cervical spinal cord injury.

Friends who were with her at the time reported hearing a noise and turning around to find her lying on the ground.

The teenager also died after her body struck the ground violently.

Witness accounts suggest the girl deliberately jumped off the deck in an apparent suicide.

Following the incident, many passers-by were seen putting their palms together in prayer and looking up at the deck.

“There is no clear answer on who should be blamed,” said a woman in her 30s from Yokohama’s Hodogaya Ward after offering flowers. “The only thing I can say is that a society should be realized where children consider their lives are worth living.”

Police were looking into whether to posthumously arrest the student on suspicion of gross negligence resulting in death.

Some people blamed East Japan Railway Co. (JR East), the operator of the observation deck, which was closed off the day after the deaths.

The Yokohama branch of JR East explained that the deck is surrounded by 2.5-meter-tall glass walls.

“We believe the walls are impossible to climb over,” said a branch representative.

JR East also emphasized there are no objects that can be used as stools around the wall where the student fell. All tables and chairs on the rooftop are secured and cannot be moved by visitors.

It is possible that the teenager climbed one of trees planted inside the glass walls to jump from the deck.

Lawyer Koichiro Mochizuki, who is knowledgeable about legal conflicts involving fatal falls, said it is difficult to question the facility operator’s responsibility in such a case.

“Operators are required to ensure safety on the assumption their facilities are used only for their intended purposes,” Mochizuki said. “Unlike accidental falls of small kids, a young adult might have purposefully climbed over the 2.5-meter wall in the latest case.”

Mochizuki stressed that “some extra approaches to protect people below from other people’s falls are essential, though.”

According to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, the Order for Enforcement of the Building Standards Law stipulates that rooftop spaces must have handrails or walls at least 1.1 meters high. This mandatory height has remained unchanged since the order was introduced in 1950.

Tomohito Tanaka, an associate professor of sociology at Sendai University who is familiar with facility security, called for increased safety criteria.

“There seems to be no end to passers-by being killed by falling people,” Tanaka said. “Additional countermeasures need to be put in place.”

Tanaka suggested operators add curved designs to the top of walls or deploy more patrols and artificial intelligence surveillance systems to detect possible jumpers and other suspicious acts.

INELIGIBLE FOR COMPENSATION

Another problem lies in how bereaved families of victims in such falls can gain compensation.

Lawyer Yasuo Sawai said the female student’s heirs in this case are expected to take responsibility for compensating the woman’s family.

The compensation amount is estimated to total tens of millions of yen (hundreds of thousands of dollars), which includes the lifetime benefits the victim would have gained had she lived, alongside consolation money.

However, Sawai said the student’s heirs will be “exempt from responsibility for compensation if they relinquish the rights to inheritance within three months.”

Another lawyer, Jun Takada, who supports those affected by crimes, said bereaved families often cannot receive compensation after heirs with no personal liability insurance give up their inheritance rights.

In addition, the central government’s subsidy mechanism for bereaved families only covers victims of intentional crimes. Those killed by someone’s negligence are ineligible for the subsidies.

Kanagawa Prefecture provides 700,000 yen and Yokohama city offers 300,000 yen in compensation to relatives of crime victims. Accident victims are not covered under these mechanisms either.

Takada said such victims are excluded from compensation frameworks because of the difficulty in determining the degree of negligence.

“The scope of the state’s compensation for crime victims has yet to be revised, although the subsidy amount was raised earlier this year,” Takada said. “A system to fill the legal gap is necessary for negligence victims to receive some form of assistance.”