案情简介
In June 2022, Mr. Lu joined a company to work as an injection molding operator. Around 19:30 o January 8, 2025, while riding a two-wheeled electric bicycle to work, Mr. Lu lost control and fell after his vehicle ran over a stone on the ar an unused bus stop, resulting in injuries.
After seeing Mr. Lu injured, colleague Mr. Zhou asked him what happened. Mr. Lu stated, "Just now at t bus stop, I ran over a stone while riding and fell." Mr. Zhou then called the emergency number 120, and Mr. Lu was taken to the local health centwhere he was diagnosed with a ruptured spleen and internal abdominal bleeding.
Around 9:00 PM on the day of the incident, Mr. Lu called the police to report he accident. On January 11, 2025, the local Public Security Traffic Police Detachment issued a "Statement of Circumstances," which state: Around 19:30 on January 8, 2025, while riding a two-wheeled electric bicycle near an unused bus stop, Mr. Lu lost control anll after the vehicle ran over a stone on the road, resulting in injuries. On February 18, 2025, the company applied to the local Human Resources and Socurity Bureau (HRSSB) for a work-related injury determination.
The HRSSB conducted an investigation of the accident scene, and the results showed that the road surface at the aent site was flat, streetlights were installed on both sides of the road, and no surveillance video was found at the scene. The company also issued an "Accident Report" rrding Mr. Lu's injury, which stated in the cause analysis: After the accident, the company immediately organized relevant personnel to conduct an investigation, concluding that the cause was that some employees faile observe the road conditions and pay attention to driving safety while commuting.
处理结果
The Human Resources and Social Security Bureau issued a "Decision on Non-Recognition of Work-related Injury." Dissatisfied, Mr. Lu filed an administrative lawsuit. Afthe first and second instance trials, the second-instance court ultimately upheld the conclusion of the work-related injury determination made by the Human Resources and Social Security Bureau.
法律分析
Article 14, Item 6 of the Regulations on Work-related Injury Insurance stipulates that where a worker is injured in a traffic accident or an accident involving urban rt, passenger ferry, or train during the commute to or from work, and the worker bears no primary responsibility for the accident, the injury shall be recognized as a work-related injury. rding to the aforementioned provision, if a worker suffers injury from a traffic accident during the commute and the injury is recognized as a work-related injury, the worker must bear non-primary responsibility for he accident, namely, no responsibility, minor responsibility, or equal responsibility.
The crux of the dispute in this case is whether Lu should bear primary or full responsibility for the traffic accident that occurred while he was commutin work on the day of the incident, given the absence of an accident liability determination. Article 1 of the *Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning ministrative Cases Involving Work-related Injury Insurance* stipulates that when people's courts try administrative cases involving work-related injury identification and determine whether there is "primary responsibility of th individual" under Item 6 of Article 14 of the *Regulations on Work-related Injury Insurance*, they shall rely on legal documents such as accident liability determination certificates, conclusive opins issued by competent authorities, and effective judgments of people's courts, except where there is contrary evidence sufficient to overturn the accident liability determination certificate and conclusive opinion. Where the aforementioned legal docudo not exist or their content is unclear, and the social insurance administration department makes a determination regarding the facts mentioned in the preceding paragraph, the people's court shall review it in accordance h the law in combination with the relevant evidence provided. According to the aforementioned provisions, the determination of "primary responsibility of the individual" shall, in principle, be made by a competenity; however, in the absence of corresponding legal documents or where the content is unclear, the social security department may, when making a work-related injury determination, comprehensively judge whether the emears primary responsibility for the traffic accident based on factors such as the existence of the traffic accident, whether a report was filed in accordance with the law, the content of the traffic accident te, evidence provided by the parties involved, and on-site investigation.
In this case, the parties have no objection to the fact that Lu was injured when he fell while riding an electric bicycle on his way to work. Accong to the on-site investigation, the road surface at the accident site was level, and streetlights were installed on both sides of the road. As a person with full civil capacity, Lu wobligated to exercise due care regarding road conditions and drive cautiously. Therefore, in the absence of a traffic police determination regarding liability and without evidence proving the existence of a third party bull, primary, or equal responsibility for the accident, the Human Resources and Social Security Bureau determined, after investigation, that the accident was caused by Lu's own reasons and that the injuries sined did not qualify as a work-related injury, which is in accordance with the law.
This article is reprinted from the WeChat Official Account "Shandong Higher People's Court", and we express our gratitude!