[Case Summary]This case involves a dispute over liability for motor vehicle traffic accidents. Courier Zhao * drove an unlicensed motorcycle and had an accident with pedestrian Liu *, resulting in Liu *'s death. Both parties bear equal responsibility. In the first-instance trial, it was determined that Zhao * was not performing his duties, and Zhao * and A Transportation Company should each compensate 50% of the damages, with B Express Company being jointly and severally liable. Zhao * disagreed with the judgment and appointed Beijing Henglu Law Firm to represent him in the appeal.Tian Jia YanThe lawyer appealed, and the second-instance court revoked the original judgment and remanded the case for retrial. The retrial confirmed that Zhao * was performing his duties during his commute and that A and B companies should bear responsibility. The core dispute was whether Zhao * was performing his duties at the time of the accident. Applicable laws: The Tort Liability Chapter of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China and the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China. The client won the case again in the retrial, and the court legally protected the client's rights and interests.

I. Review of the case

When a courier crashes into someone on the way to work, is the company responsible? The parties often search for terms like "does an accident during work count as performing duties?" "how to appeal a traffic accident case for a retrial?" and "joint and several liability of the subcontracting company". Zhao * was a courier for A Transport Company, which had a subcontracting relationship with B Express Company. On October 29, 2022, Zhao * was involved in an accident with pedestrian Liu * while driving an unlicensed motorcycle. Liu * died on November 11. The traffic police determined that both parties were equally responsible, as the vehicle did not meet registration standards. The rescue costs amounted to 137,427.16 yuan, of which the rescue fund paid 134,244.1 yuan. The two plaintiffs (Zhang *, his wife, and Liu *, his son) sued Zhao *, A, and B, demanding joint compensation for medical expenses of 3,183.06 yuan, hospitalization subsidies of 1,300 yuan, death compensation of 924,253 yuan, funeral expenses of 63,768 yuan, and mental distress compensation of 100,000 yuan, with the insurer covering 50% of the total amount, amounting to 638,493.56 yuan. First-instance judgment: Zhao * was not performing duties during work and should be compensated based on his fault; A and Zhao * should bear joint liability within the scope of compulsory insurance; each party should bear 50% of the liability outside the compulsory insurance scope; and B should bear joint liability with A. Zhao * appealed against the judgment. 快递员上班路上撞人公司担责吗，当事人常搜"上班途中肇事算执行职务吗""交通事故发回重审怎么打""挂靠公司连带责任"。赵某系A运输公司快递员，A公司与B快递公司系挂靠关系。2022年10月29日赵某驾无牌摩托与步行刘某事故，刘某11月11日死亡，交通队认定同等责任，车未登记不符标准。抢救费137427.16元，救助基金付134244.1元。二原告（妻张某、子刘某1）诉赵某、A、B，求连带赔偿医疗3183.06、住院补助1300、死亡赔偿金924253、丧葬63768、精神10万，交强险外50%，共638493.56元。一审：赵某上班途中非执行职务，按过错赔偿；A与赵交强险内连带；交强险外各50%；B与A连带。赵某不服委托Tian Jia YanThe lawyer appealed, arguing that he should be allowed to perform his duties. The second-instance court revoked the original judgment and remanded the case for retrial.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: Whether the actions taken were within the scope of official duties.At the time of the accident, was Zhao * in a state of performing his duties beyond his normal responsibilities, and who should bear the responsibility for it?
  • Focus 2: Vehicles and insurance factors.How are the management responsibilities allocated when a vehicle is unlicensed, not insured, and provided by the company?
  • Focus Three: Compensation Standards and Proportions.What standards are used to calculate the losses, and how do various parties assume responsibility for them?

III. Professional intervention by Hengluo Lawyers

The original plaintiffs (the two plaintiffs) claimed that:The two plaintiffs persisted in their demands and requested the three defendants to jointly compensate a total of 638,493.56 yuan.

The defendant argued that:Company A argued that the vehicle should be parked in the company, that Zhao * was not on duty during the non-working hours of 5 a.m., that the vehicle had no safety hazards, that there should be no compensation, and that it had already paid 12,973.67 yuan; Company B argued that the cooperation was not a contracting relationship, that Zhao * was not a beneficiary and should not be held jointly liable, that the vehicle could not be insured at that time, and that the losses should be calculated according to the standards of 2022.

Hengluo Lawyer's Representation Opinion:Tian JiayanThe lawyer disagrees with all the claims of the two plaintiffs and points out that: Zhao * is an employee of Company A, with a work schedule starting at 6 a.m. and a work location near Anzhen. His residence is located at No. 301 F Zhong Road, which is 2.2 km away from the workplace and takes about ten minutes to reach by tricycle. The accident occurred at 5:47, which coincides with his work schedule and should be considered as performing work duties and extending his work responsibilities. The liability should be borne by Companies A and B. The vehicle was provided by Company A, and the parking area near the dormitory should be considered as a place for parking the vehicle. The responsibility for the vehicle not meeting standards and management errors should be borne by Company A, and the responsibility for not purchasing insurance should be borne by Companies A and B. The retrial court confirmed that Zhao * was performing work duties and extending his work responsibilities during his commute to work.

IV. Outcome of the case

The retrial court confirmed that "Zhao * was on his way to work at the time of the accident", and held that Zhao * was in an extended state of performing his duties when the traffic accident occurred, thus determining that it was a performance of duties, and the relevant legal responsibilities should be borne by A Transport Company and B Express Company. After the case was sent back for retrial, the plaintiff won the lawsuit again, restoring the facts, clarifying the legal relationships and responsibilities of all parties, and protecting the legitimate rights and interests of the parties in accordance with the law. The second-instance court had previously ruled to revoke the first-instance judgment and send the case back for retrial.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

This case is represented by Attorney Tian Jiaoyan of Beijing Henglu Law Firm (practice license number: 11101202111381309, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ). It is determined that "performing work tasks" is the prerequisite for the employer to bear responsibility, and the determination should be based on the name, appearance, time, place, beneficiary, and the relationship with the employer's will. A reminder to transportation companies: purchase insurance for employees' vehicles and implement standardized management to avoid the failure of the "non-working hours" defense; if victims encounter subcontracting or job disputes, they should entrust professional lawyers to clarify the subject and responsibility.

VI. Common Questions and Answers about Personal Injury Cases

  1. Q: Is an accident during the commute to work considered being on duty?
    A:If the time and route coincide with the employee's work schedule and are for the purpose of preparing for work, it can be deemed as an extension of the employee's duties, and the employer shall bear the responsibility for it.
  2. Q: How to file an appeal for a traffic accident case that has been sent back for retrial?
    A:Focus on the loopholes in the determination of facts in the first instance, supplement evidence and legal basis, and re-clarify the legal relationship between the parties and the proportion of responsibilities.
  3. Q: How is the joint and several liability of the subcontracting company determined?
    A:In the subcontracting relationship, the party being subcontracted is often held jointly liable for accidents involving the subcontracted vehicles, the specific liability being determined based on their relationship with the subcontractor and the assessment of their fault.
  4. Q: Who is responsible if the company car is not insured?
    A:For those who should have purchased compulsory insurance but failed to do so, the relevant compensation responsibilities shall be borne by the management party, and the company may face unfavorable assessments due to the lack of insurance coverage.
  5. Q: How is the death compensation calculated under the principle of equal liability?
    A:First, the compulsory motor vehicle liability insurance will make the compensation. For the part that is not covered by the insurance, the liable party will share the responsibility according to the proportion of liability (such as 50%), which includes death compensation, funeral expenses, and mental consolation money, etc.