What happened?

I see. That must have been a painful accident.

Let’s examine this together. In such cases, we typically first consider the “percentage of fault.”

The gallery that served as the venue, the individual who caused the damage, and the artist were the three parties involved. You mentioned that the audience member’s hand slipped, but were they permitted to touch the work in the first place?

In that case, it seems the artist isn’t at fault, and both the gallery and the audience member should be held accountable. However, I believe the gallery has a duty to ensure the safety the work. Should we proceed with this assumption?

We’ll revisit the matter with the gallery shortly, but legally, there’s no obstacle to pursuing compensation directly from the individual responsible. However, the key question here is determining the extent of what’s permissible. Please note that it’s not customary for the full amount to be refunded.

If you’re seeking to quantify the value of your work, you might consider the concept of “lost profit.” This entails assessing not only the immediate loss but also the potential future profits that the work could have generated. Mr. Kakuta, would this be analogous to lost earnings in this case?

I think it is difficult. Typically, lost earnings are associated with cases like permanent disability resulting from a car accident, where the calculation is based on projected earning without the accident. However, in this scenario, it’s uncertain whether we can convincingly argue that various future business opportunities could have stemmed from Ms. Tamako’s lost work. It would essentially be speculative, making it difficult to substantiate.

The challenging aspect here is that regardless of the amount claimed, Tamako’s side, asserting the damage, must provide documentation and justification. Why specifically 500,000 yen?

A potential counterargument from the party being held responsible could be, “even if I had not damaged it, the work may not have sold.”

There’s no denying that the work is currently physically damaged, and the effort invested in creating it is evident. If it took you a week to create, you could calculate an average daily rate or assess it based on a cost incurred. However, it would be challenging to match the original selling price.

Then, it becomes a matter of market performance.

In that case, why not consider it in the market price? For example, your career trajectory, past competition awards, and your social media presence, especially if it’s recent. This includes metrics like the number of “likes” on your most recent artist-related posts.

For instance, if you have 10,000 followers, comparing prices with artists in the same genre and with the similar follower counts could be helpful.

There are various methods to argue the value, but as a lawyer, I can only present such arguments; ultimately, it’s up to the judge to decide. Assessing the value of art is inherently complex, and judges may be reluctant to specify a precise amount in their ruling. Instead, they may encourage reconciliation or compromise.

The judge’s role is to make decisions based on the materials and evidence provided by both sides. Without sufficient evidence, it would be challenging to determine an absolute value. As for our discussion in the second part of this column, let’s delve further into the dynamics between the gallery as the exhibition venue and Ms. Tamako.