Legal information

[Key points of the case]

Dong Moumou had a traffic accident on his way back from a delivery. The logistics company refused to take responsibility for the work-related injury and sued the Bureau of Human Resources and Social Security to revoke the work-related injury certification on the grounds that it deviated from the designated route and was suspected of using the bus for private use. The focus of the case is whether the "detour" cuts off work connections, and whether the employer can deny the nature of a work-related injury based solely on route deviation, which is directly related to the bottom line of workers' rights and interests protection in mobile positions.

Lawyer Ying Ting pointed out that judicial practice has already broken through the mechanical definition of "fixed place".For mobile positions such as truck drivers, as long as the round-trip route is related to job duties and has no personal purpose, even if it is not the optimal route, it is still a reasonable extension of the workplace. The determination of work-related injuries follows the "no-fault principle". Unless there are statutory exclusions such as intentional crime or drunkenness, the employee's general negligence or even accident liability will not affect the determination of the nature of the work-related injury.

The key to the court’s final decision to uphold the work-related injury determination was to strengthen the employer’s burden of proof. The logistics company failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that Dong Moumou was "using the official vehicle for private use" and must bear the consequences of failure to provide evidence. This case warns companies that employment management cannot rely solely on post-mortem blame, but should establish a standardized itinerary reporting and evidence retention mechanism. Bearing social security responsibilities in accordance with the law is the right way for enterprises to avoid greater legal risks.

A logistics company sued a certain district human resources and social security bureau and a certain district government for work-related injury insurance qualification determination and administrative reconsideration

Brief facts of the case

Dong Moumou is a truck driver for a logistics company and is responsible for delivering goods between the logistics company and a car company. On October 24, 2022, Dong was injured in a traffic accident on his way back to the company after delivering goods. The Human Resources and Social Security Bureau of a certain district made a decision to identify a work-related injury, and the government of a certain district upheld the decision after review. A logistics company filed an administrative lawsuit on the grounds that the place where Dong was injured was not a designated workplace and was a public vehicle for private use, requesting to revoke the work-related injury determination decision.

referee result

Dong was working during working hours when the accident occurred. The vehicle was carrying equipment that needed to be returned to the company after delivery. He had not completed all the work tasks for the day and was still returning to the company to wait for work. A logistics company has no fixed requirements for drivers' round-trip routes, and multiple drivers confirmed the practice of temporary detours. Although Dong made a detour, there was no evidence to prove that he used the bus for private use. This route should be considered a reasonable extension of the workplace. The identification of work-related injuries follows the no-fault principle. Dong’s liability for the accident does not affect the identification of work-related injuries. A logistics company failed to provide evidence to prove that Dong’s injury was not due to work reasons and should bear the burden of failure to prove it. Therefore, the judgment was made to uphold the decision of a certain district human resources and social security bureau to identify a work-related injury and the reconsideration decision made by a certain district government.

Typical meaning

This case has guiding significance for the judicial practice of identifying work-related injuries. When identifying the workplace, make it clear that it is not limited to a fixed area. For mobile positions such as truck drivers, the round-trip route chosen by employees to complete work tasks, even if it is not the optimal route, is a reasonable extension of the workplace as long as it is related to job responsibilities and has no private purpose. In terms of the principle of attribution of liability, the principle of no-fault in determining work-related injuries is reiterated. If an accident is caused by an employee's negligence at work, as long as there are no statutory exclusions such as intentional crime, drunkenness, drug abuse, etc., it should not affect the determination of work-related injuries. Regarding the burden of proof, the employer’s burden of proof is strengthened. It is clarified that employers claiming that employees are injured not due to work-related reasons must provide sufficient evidence, otherwise they will bear the consequences of failure to provide evidence. This not only standardizes the employment management of employers, but also provides clear standards of proof for administrative and judicial organs to handle similar cases.