1. Overview of the Case
Company A is a business operating an indoor hot spring and recreation facility. An incident occurred in which a particular customer, after warming themselves by a fire for an extended period within the facility, collapsed and was transported to a hospital. The customer subsequently claimed carbon monoxide poisoning and filed a complaint with the competent administrative agency. An investigation was conducted, but no violation of the law was found. Nevertheless, the customer continued to demand entry and attempted to force their way into using the facility, and Company A requested a legal review on whether entry restrictions were possible for the sake of the safety and operation of the business premises.
2. Your Legal Team's Advice
Your Legal Team analyzed the legal basis relating to the authority to restrict entry to a business premises and provided advice to Company A. It explained that restricting the entry of a particular customer is possible on the basis of the freedom of business and property rights guaranteed under the Constitution, and emphasized in particular that legitimacy may be recognized for such a measure to ensure the safety of the business premises and prevent further accidents. In addition, in order to effectively implement the entry restriction, it proposed measures to (1) send a notice of entry restriction by certified mail (content-certified mail), (2) post a notice at the entrance, (3) prepare staff training and a response manual, and (4) secure evidence such as CCTV records.
3. Outcome
As a result, Company A implemented systematic entry restriction measures and was able to maintain the safety of the business premises while preventing unnecessary legal disputes with the customer. Furthermore, by following clear procedures, Company A achieved the result of refining an internal response manual so that consistent responses would be possible in the event of similar problems in the future.