Zhang is an employee of a cultural goods company and resides in Village A of a certain township. At around 17:00 one day, Zhang returned home from work and collided with a vehicle parked illegally on the roadside by an outsider while passing through the east-west section of B Village. Zhang fell to the ground and suffered severe head injuries. After unsuccessful rescue efforts, he died the next day. The accident has been identified by the traffic police department, and the third party is fully responsible for the accident, while Zhang is not responsible. After the accident, Zhang's wife submitted an application for work-related injury recognition to the human resources and social security department. The human resources and social security department believed that the accident injury suffered by Zhang fell within the scope of work-related injury recognition and was recognized as work-related death. A certain cultural goods company is dissatisfied and has filed an administrative lawsuit with the court, arguing that B village is not a necessary route for Zhang to commute to and from work, and that Zhang has taken detours, which does not meet the standards for work-related injury determination.

After trial, the court found that Article 14 (6) of the Work Injury Insurance Regulations stipulates that if a person is injured in a traffic accident or urban rail transit, passenger ferry, or train accident that is not their main responsibility while commuting, it should be recognized as a work-related injury. Article 6 of the "Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Administrative Cases of Work Injury Insurance" stipulates that if the social insurance department determines that the following situations are "on the way to and from work", the people's court shall support: (1) on the reasonable route of commuting between work and residence, passing through habitual residence, and unit dormitory within a reasonable time; （2） On the reasonable route of commuting between the workplace and the residence of spouse, parents, and children within a reasonable time; （3） Engage in activities necessary for daily work and life, and travel to and from work at reasonable times and on reasonable routes; （4） On the way to and from work on other reasonable routes within a reasonable time. ”The above regulations clarify the dual criteria for determining reasonable time and route during commuting. To determine whether a route is reasonable, it should be comprehensively considered based on objective factors such as employees' working hours, place of residence, traffic conditions, actual road conditions, and means of transportation. It cannot be mechanically understood as a fixed and unique route. As long as the purpose of travel is normal commuting and there are no obvious abnormalities in the route selection, it should be recognized as a reasonable route for commuting.

In this case, there is a labor relationship between Zhang and a cultural goods company, which has been confirmed by an effective civil judgment. The involved traffic accident occurred during Zhang's normal working hours, and Zhang had no responsibility for the accident. A cultural goods company claimed that B village was not a necessary route for Zhang to go home after work. However, according to the traffic route map, Zhang's route through B village was a reasonable choice and there was no deliberate detour. Therefore, based on the specific circumstances at the time of the accident, the human resources and social security department determined that the injury suffered by Zhang was a work-related injury. The facts were clear, the applicable laws were correct, and the procedures were legal. The court ultimately ruled to reject the lawsuit request of a cultural goods company. A certain cultural goods company appealed against the decision and the second instance upheld the original verdict.

This article is transferred from the WeChat official account "Shandong Gaofa". Thank you!