Summary of the trial
In the course of an individual's operation with all its tractors and trailers attached to multiple units, and the drivers hired by it are injured due to work-related injuries, because the completion of the business work must be effectively combined by the tractor and the trailer to play a role together, and they are inseparable and indispensable to each other, according to the legislative spirit of the work-related injury insurance law aimed at protecting vulnerable workers, the people's court may use the "affiliated unit" in Article 3, Paragraph 1, Item 5 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Administrative Cases of Work-related Injury Insurance It is interpreted as a plurality of affiliated units, and it is determined that the affiliated units of the tractor and trailer should jointly bear the liability for work-related injury insurance.
[Facts]
Ran Moumou is a driver hired by Gong Moumou. On April 5, 2017, Gong Moumou purchased a heavy-duty semi-trailer tractor from Jiaxuan Company and operated it under the name of Jiaxuan Company on the same day; Later, it purchased a heavy-duty flatbed trailer and operated under the name of Bohao Company on October 26, 2017. On April 11, 2018, Ran Moumou was assigned by Gong Moumou to drive a heavy-duty semi-trailer tractor to tow a heavy-duty flatbed trailer to a factory in Changshou District, Chongqing to pull goods, and collided with a heavy-duty semi-trailer tractor driven by Ai at the intersection of the rolling yard in the factory, causing Ran Moumou to be injured. On May 19, 2022, Ran Moumou applied to the Fuling District Human Resources and Social Security Bureau for a work-related injury determination with Jiaxuan Company and Bohao Company as employers. After investigation, the Fuling District Human Resources and Social Security Bureau made the "Decision on Recognition of Work-related Injury" on July 18, 2022, determining that the injury suffered by Ran Moumou met the provisions of Article 14, Paragraph 1 of the "Regulations on Work-related Injury Insurance" and belonged to the scope of work-related injury identification, and was recognized as a work-related injury, and Jiaxuan Company and Bohao Company jointly bore the main responsibility for work-related injuries. Jiaxuan Company and Bohao Company were dissatisfied and filed a lawsuit with the people's court.
[Trial]
After trial, the Nanchuan District People's Court of Chongqing Municipality held that Ran Moumou had a traffic accident while driving a tractor and a flatbed trailer on the road as a whole, and that he had been injured in an accident at work, and that the vehicle he was driving had the same affiliation legal relationship with Jiaxuan Company and Bohao Company. Ran's injury should be recognized as a work-related injury, and Jiaxuan Company and Bohao Company, the units to which the vehicle was attached, jointly bear the work-related injury insurance liability for his injury. Therefore, the judgment rejected the litigation claims of Jiaxuan Company and Bohao Company.
After the verdict was pronounced, Jiaxuan Company and Bohao Company were dissatisfied and appealed. After trial, the Chongqing No. 3 Intermediate People's Court held that, firstly, according to the provisions of Article 3, Paragraph 1, Item 5 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Administrative Cases of Work-related Injury Insurance (hereinafter referred to as the "Provisions"), the unit that bears the liability for work-related injury insurance is the affiliated unit, and does not distinguish whether it is the affiliated unit of the tractor or the affiliated unit of the trailer, and Jiaxuan Company and Bohao Company are both affiliated units of the vehicle driven by Ran. The Fuling District Human Resources and Social Security Bureau found that it was not improper for the two appellants to jointly bear the liability for work-related injury insurance as affiliated units. Secondly, based on the classification standards of motor vehicles in the mainland, tractors and trailers are managed separately, but the two vehicles cannot be treated separately. A trailer without a tractor cannot be driven on the road, and a tractor without a trailer has no use value, and it is the combination of the two vehicles that makes a significant change in the likelihood or severity of a traffic accident. In the determination of work-related injuries in the case of traffic accidents when the tractor and trailer are connected and used, it is not appropriate to simply split and consider that the company affiliated with the "tractor" or "trailer" bears the work-related injury insurance liability alone. Bohao Company's argument that Jiaxuan Company is the affiliated unit of the tractor and should be the responsible unit of Jiaxuan Company for work-related injury insurance is not accepted. Finally, the determination of work-related injuries should be based on the protection of the legitimate rights and interests of employees, and the determination in this case that Jiaxuan Company and Bohao Company are jointly responsible for work-related injury insurance is more conducive to fully protecting the legitimate rights and interests of the injured Ran. The appeal was dismissed and the original judgment was upheld.
[Commentary]
In this case, there were different opinions on the determination of the subject of work-related injury insurance liability in the case of multiple affiliated units at the same time. The first opinion is that the trailer itself does not have a power device, and the traction of the tractor needs to be manipulated and towed to play a role, so the tractor is crucial in the driving process, and the unit attached to the tractor should bear the liability for work-related injury insurance. The second opinion is that the tractor and the trailer are driven as a whole rather than independently, and it is precisely because the effective combination of the two can the business work be successfully completed, so the different units attached to the tractor and the trailer should be jointly responsible. The author agrees with the second opinion for the following reasons:
First, it is impossible to judge the respective role of the two cars. The Terms and Definitions of Automobiles, Trailers and Motor Trains states that a trailer is a non-powered road vehicle that is designed, manufactured and technically designed to be used normally by being towed by a vehicle. Paragraph 4 of Article 13 of the "Provisions on the Registration of Motor Vehicles" stipulates: "When the vehicle management office goes through the registration, it shall issue the motor vehicle registration certificate, number plate, driving license and inspection mark to the tractor and trailer respectively. It can be seen that whether it is a tractor or a trailer, both can be registered separately and can independently become a "thing" in the sense of traditional civil law with certain power attributes; However, since the trailer itself does not have a power plant, according to the definition of a motor vehicle, the trailer should not be considered a "motor vehicle" in its own right. However, when the tractor and the trailer are connected and used, the overall combination of the two is a motor vehicle with complete attributes. In other words, if the tractor and the trailer are not connected, it is difficult to play their unique role as a special production operation vehicle, and then the owner will not be able to realize the original purpose of purchasing such a special vehicle. In the author's opinion, there are certain similarities between the combination of the two vehicles and the composite formed by attachment in the sense of the Civil Code, but since the tractor and trailer are usually owned by the same owner, they cannot be generalized. However, it can be concluded that after the combination of the two is regarded as an organic whole, it is difficult to distinguish the magnitude of the specific causal force of the two vehicles as components in the legal sense when the relevant accident occurs and the subject of legal liability is determined. In the author's opinion, the first opinion mentioned above actually only focuses on the application of physical technology, fails to conduct an in-depth integrated analysis from the dual perspectives of law and technology, and especially does not fully consider the special spiritual value and interests inherent in modern work-related injury insurance cases, so it should not become the mainstream opinion in the handling of this case and similar cases.
Second, the principle of joint liability for damages in other fields under the same affiliation model is also adopted. Affiliation is both a factual act and a legal act, and the legal relationships that can arise from this are diverse, and the basis for multiple affiliated units to jointly bear the liability of work-related injury insurance can also be glimpsed in other areas of legal relations. On the one hand, in the field of road traffic torts, the Civil Code stipulates that if a motor vehicle causes damage to others in the course of affiliated operation, the sponsor and the affiliated party shall bear joint and several liability. In terms of external relations, practice also basically believes that the combination of tractor and trailer should be regarded as a whole, and in the event of a traffic accident, it can be regarded as the joint infringement of tractor and trailer resulting in the occurrence of the accident. On the other hand, in the field of insurance law, it is actually closely related to the tort liability of road traffic, and it is believed that even if a vehicle is not separately insured with compulsory traffic insurance, the tractor and trailer are basically regarded as one in practice. For example, in the case of a trailer without a power unit causing damage alone, it is still considered that the compulsory traffic insurance of the tractor should cover the traffic accident liability caused by the trailer alone. From this point of view, the difference between the above two legal fields and the one involved in this case is mainly that the object of the accident is an internal person or an external person or property, but there is no difference in the principle understanding that the specific liability borne by a certain subject cannot be determined separately based on the combination of tractor and trailer. Therefore, when determining the subject of work-related injury insurance liability similar to this case, it is necessary to consider the common understanding in the existing laws in order to ensure the uniformity of the implementation of the law.
Third, the spirit of the principle of preferential protection for workers in work-related injury insurance is dictated. Although Article 3, Paragraph 1, Item 5 of the Provisions does not further define "affiliated entity", it also shows that the existing norms do not explicitly restrict only one affiliated entity from assuming work-related injury insurance liability, so there is some room for interpretation in judicial practice. In other words, "affiliated units" can be interpreted as multiple affiliated entities. Returning to the similar affiliated business model in this case, the sponsor reaches an agreement with the affiliated entity to engage in external operations in the name of the affiliated entity by the sponsoring party, and the affiliated entity receives a certain management fee as consideration, and at the same time obtains hidden benefits such as expanding the scale of operation, increasing market share and corporate influence. In this kind of affiliated operation, only the staff employed by the affiliated person is in a relatively weak position, and allowing the affiliated unit to bear the liability for work-related injury insurance is more conducive to fully protecting the legitimate rights and interests of the laborers and avoiding the work-related injury damage suffered by the affiliated person as the actual owner of the vehicle due to the limitation of individual economic capacity, which is the legal principle implied in the provisions of Article 3, Paragraph 1, Item 5 of the Provisions. In the mode of multiple affiliated units, the spirit of the work-related injury insurance law should also be recognized for the protection of employees. In fact, a number of affiliated units are no different from a single affiliated entity, and these affiliated units have obtained different degrees of benefits from the above-mentioned sponsoring behavior. Therefore, combined with the principle of "consistency of interests and risks", multiple affiliated units should perform the corresponding supervision and management duties at the same time, and if the relevant employees are injured by work-related injuries, the multiple affiliated units should jointly bear the work-related injury insurance liability.
To sum up, this case is based on Article 3, Paragraph 1, Item 5 of the Provisions, systematically understands the value logic of the law and the basic spiritual principles of legislation, interprets the "affiliated units" as multiple affiliated units, and determines that Jiaxuan Company and Bohao Company jointly bear the liability for work-related injury insurance, fully protecting the legitimate rights and interests of vulnerable workers, and realizing the organic unity of the "three effects".
Case No.: (2022) Yu 0119 Xingchu No. 168, (2023) Yu 03 Xing Zhong No. 95
Case prepared by: Wu Xiao, Chongqing No. 3 Intermediate People's Court
Source: People's Court Daily