## Facts

- Abe owned land with standing timber.
- Chiba entered the land without permission and illegally cut down and removed trees.
- Abe sued Chiba seeking damages for the timber that was taken.
- The dispute concerned three parcels of land, identified as Parcels A, B, and C.
- Based on the trial evidence, the trial court found that Abe owned Parcels A and C.
- The evidence showed the quantity and value of timber cut from Parcels B and C, but the record did not contain evidence showing the quantity or value of timber cut from Parcel A.
- The trial court ruled for Abe and awarded damages.
- Chiba appealed.
- The appellate court concluded it could not determine the “correct” amount of damages because there was no evidence of the amount or value of timber cut from Parcel A, and it dismissed Abe’s damages claim on that basis.
- Neither the trial court nor the appellate court found that there was no possibility of obtaining additional evidence regarding the timber cut from Parcel A.
- Abe appealed to the Supreme Court of Japan.

## Issues

1. May a court dismiss a damages claim solely because the present record does not allow a precise damages calculation, when liability and some damage are shown and the court has not found that additional proof cannot be obtained?
2. When evidence supports damages for some portion of the loss, must the court address that supported portion and consider additional fact-finding or a reasonable assessment for the remainder rather than denying recovery entirely?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Japan reversed the appellate court’s dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.
- The Court held that it was improper to dismiss Abe’s damages claim merely because the record lacked proof of the amount and value of timber cut from Parcel A, without determining that further proof was unavailable.
- The Court indicated that, given unlawful cutting and some evidentiary support in the record, the lower court should proceed in a way that permits a damages determination—such as by taking additional evidence and addressing damages to the extent supported—rather than rejecting the claim in full.

## Legal Principles

- A court should not deny a damages claim in its entirety simply because exact calculation is difficult or incomplete where wrongful conduct and the occurrence of damage are established.
- Before dismissing for lack of proof as to amount, a court should consider whether additional evidence can be obtained to determine damages.
- Where the record supports damages for part of the claimed loss, the court should not treat a gap in proof for another part as automatically fatal to the entire claim.
- Damages adjudication should aim to reach a reasoned determination based on available proof and, where needed, further fact-finding, instead of resolving uncertainty by denying all compensation.

## Conclusion

Abe v. Chiba holds that once unlawful timber cutting and resulting loss are shown, a court may not dismiss the damages claim merely because the current record does not permit a precise computation for one parcel, absent a finding that further proof cannot be obtained; the case was reversed and remanded so damages could be determined through additional evidence and consideration of the supported portions of the claim.


Abe v. Chiba, 18 Minshū 954 (1964)