[Direct answer]The two paths cannot be simply taken in parallel. It is necessary to choose one based on the employment relationship, the ability to provide evidence, and the subject of responsibility. Or, if the work-related injury benefits are insufficient, the victim can claim tort compensation separately for the difference. If there is an employment relationship and the conditions for being deemed a work-related injury are met, the victim can follow the procedures for recognition and claim benefits in accordance with the "Regulations on Work-Related Injury Insurance" (amended on December 20, 2010), with the emphasis of evidence on the employment relationship and the time of rescue. For situations such as third-party instigation, platform or sales party's failure to fulfill obligations, the victim can claim tort compensation in accordance with Article 1179 of the "Civil Code of the People's Republic of China" (effective January 1, 2021), with the emphasis of evidence on fault, causality, and causation. The cases handled by our firm show that once the wrong qualification is chosen, the materials will be organized in the wrong direction, and the statute of limitations will also be delayed. It is recommended to clarify the timeline and subject relationships first, then determine the main path to avoid the use of two systems simultaneously, resulting in duplication or contradiction of the same project.

1. Problem background and typical scenarios

After losing a loved one suddenly, what often stumps families is not the amount of compensation, but rather who to claim against and according to which rules. For clear employment relationships and on-the-job illnesses, people instinctively turn to work-related injury identification; but once the death involves third-party actions, online groups, product sources, or venue management, the basis for claims becomes more complex, with both work-related injury and tort litigation potentially arising simultaneously. The differences between the two are comprehensive: work-related injury identification is applied to social insurance administrative departments, which review labor relations and statutory circumstances, with benefits calculated according to standard items; while tort litigation is filed in courts, which assess fault, damages, and causality, with compensation items and liability ratios varying case by case. The cost of choosing the wrong path is concrete: collecting materials according to incorrect guidelines, submitting appraisal applications to the wrong entities, and missing statutory deadlines. Procedures may also diverge—if criminal or administrative avenues fail, civil remedies are not necessarily closed off. Families can still pursue claims for acts such as instigation or failure to fulfill due diligence obligations. By listing the subject relationships, time nodes, and attributable actions one by one, the path becomes clear, avoiding repeated back-and-forth between the two sets of rules.

II. Key points of contention

One of the disputes is whether the basis of the right of claim can coexist. The same damage should not be compensated repeatedly for the same item. In practice, it is usually the case that one main path is chosen and the uncovered part is compensated additionally. Which items can be compensated and which cannot must be checked according to Article 1179 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (effective from January 1, 2021) and the Work-related Injury Insurance Regulations (amended on December 20, 2010). The second dispute concerns the counterpart and the form of liability. In the work-related injury path, the counterpart is the social security agency and the employer. In the tort path, it may also target the direct perpetrator, guardian, online platform, and seller at the same time, with different obligations and forms of liability. It is necessary to distinguish whether the liability is joint or several according to the causality. The third dispute concerns the causality and evidence form. In the tort lawsuit, the connection between the guidance and incitement content in the group and the death result mainly relies on chat records, forensic appraisal, and electronic data fixation. Any missing link will weaken the chain. The fourth dispute concerns the subject qualification and procedural connection. When the direct perpetrator is a minor, the responsibility is transferred to the guardian. If the public security organ refuses to file a case, it does not mean that civil remedies are closed. Administrative or criminal procedures can proceed separately from civil tort proceedings. These four points determine where the materials should be placed in the system, which direction to apply for appraisal, and the final calculation of the liability proportion. Defining the nature first will avoid repeated work between the two sets of rules.

III. Professional analysis by Hengluo Lawyers

From the relevant cases handled by our firm, it can be seen that the organization of facts and evidence in such disputes is particularly crucial. On December 8, 2022, in a residential building in Beijing, Zhao Qingqing, aged 14, passed away due to nitrite poisoning. Before her death, she had been suffering from depression for a long time. In November 2022, she joined a WeChat group for depressed teenagers, where group members Zhao Moxin, Wu Mou, and Liu Mouxing often discussed suicide methods and shared suicide guides. On the evening of December 7, the group members guided her step by step in measuring the dosage and preparing the solution. After vomiting after taking the first dose, they even encouraged her to drink more. Zhao Qingqing's parents, Liu Shu and Zhao Gang, found shocking chat records while sorting out her belongings. Initially, they hoped to pursue criminal charges, but as all three group members were minors and suffered from depression, the public security organ refused to file a case. Liu Shu and Zhao Gang then turned to civil tort liability disputes with the help of lawyers. Breaking down this timeline, each node corresponds to a type of evidence: joining the group and daily discussions within the group correspond to the group members' identities and electronic data fixation; the guidance process on the evening of December 7 corresponds to chat records and shared suicide guides; the dosage measurement and solution preparation correspond to the type of poison identified by forensic examination and the intake method; the records found during the sorting of her belongings correspond to the extraction and preservation of original carriers; and the decision not to file a case explains why the legal process shifted from criminal to civil. In such cases, forensic opinions and electronic data are two pillars: the former anchors the cause of death to a specific substance, while the latter anchors abstract online speech to specific responsible actors and specific time points. Without either, the causal chain will be broken midway. After trial, the court determined that defendants Zhao Moxin, Wu Mou, and Liu Mouxing maliciously instigated and guided Zhao Qingqing in preparing poison and drafting a suicide note, which had a direct causal relationship with the death result and constituted joint infringement. According to Article 1169 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (effective January 1, 2021), the court ordered their guardians to bear corresponding joint and several compensation liabilities. At the same time, the court held that the platform and seller failed to fulfill their obligations of review and warning, and imposed corresponding responsibilities. This determination follows a logical progression: first confirming the existence of instigation and guidance within the group, then determining whether there is a direct causal relationship between this behavior and the death result, and finally determining joint infringement. Since the perpetrators are minors, the responsibility falls on their guardians. The court also separately evaluated the platform and seller's obligations of review and warning. Liu Shu and Zhao Gang's claims focus on three points: guidance within the group, drafting a suicide note, and the failure to fulfill obligations of review and warning. Whether the other party's responsibility is established and whether the form of liability is joint or several becomes the focus of the trial. The judgment not only seeks legal justice for the deceased, but also serves as a warning for online environment governance and platform responsibilities. This case was handled by Attorney Yuan Hang of Beijing Henglu Law Firm (licence number: 11101202110286151, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ). Henglu Law Firm advises that in the event of similar disputes, it is necessary to fix key evidence and clarify legal relationships as soon as possible, and to develop a sound protection or defense plan with the help of professional lawyers. For families, the most practical inspiration from this step is: first, align the chat records, forensic opinions, and subject identities along the timeline, and then decide which basis of claim to pursue.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

At the procedural level, the work-related injury path follows the "Regulations on Work-Related Injury Insurance" (amended on December 20, 2010), and the infringement path follows Article 117 and Article 116 of the "Civil Code of the People's Republic of China" (effective on January 1, 2021) and the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trials of Personal Injury Compensation Cases" (amended on February 15, 2022). If the dispute also involves the determination of fault in the rescue or treatment process, the responsibility can also be divided in accordance with the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trials of Medical Damage Liability Disputes" (amended in 2020). For cost burden, refer to the "Measures for the Payment of Litigation Costs" (effective on April 1, 2007), and the procedures apply to the "Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China" (amended on December 24, 2021 and effective on January 1, 2024). The process consists of four steps. **Step 1**: Secure six types of materials: proof of labor relationship and insurance coverage, complete medical records of the onset of the disease and the rescue process, chat records and shared files within the group, forensic appraisal opinions, records of platform and seller reviews and warnings, and proof of subject identity and kinship. **Step 2**: Clarify the basis of the claim and the opposing party, determine whether to apply for work-related injury recognition to the social security administrative department or file a lawsuit for infringement in court, and, if necessary, claim compensation for uncovered items. Check jurisdiction and statutory time limits. **Step 3**: For disputes over causality and liability forms, promptly apply for appraisal or order the submission of electronic data, and collect the timeline and appraisal materials all at once. **Step 4**: Prioritize negotiation or mediation. If negotiation fails, file a lawsuit. For cases involving multiple subjects, a professional lawyer appointed by the guardian or platform should be engaged to organize the litigation. For cases requiring comparison of evidentiary lists across two paths, please refer to our firm's guidance.Guidelines for Comparing Work-Related Injuries with Tort Liability ClaimsKeep all records in writing throughout the process, and don't just store the electronic data on your personal phone.

5. Hengluo Law Firm's Advice

When faced with two paths, the most taboo thing is to choose the one that seems faster first. Here are three tips: 1. Prioritize qualitative analysis: Work-related injury determination relies on labor relations and statutory circumstances, while tort litigation focuses on fault, causality, and causative factors. If chat records, forensic evidence, and subject identities are organized based on the wrong framework, it often requires a complete redo. 2. Secure electronic data early: Group messages can be retracted, files deleted, and accounts deactivated. Critical records should be preserved in written form or notarized as soon as possible, and the original carriers must be retained—don’t just take a few screenshots. In this case, Liu Shu and Zhao Gang discovered the chat records while organizing the deceased’s belongings, which laid the foundation for subsequent civil litigation. 3. Calculate costs and timelines: First-instance ordinary procedures take six months, simplified procedures three months, and second-instance proceedings three months (excluding appraisal and adding defendants). It’s advisable to estimate and prepay fees based on the *Measures for Payment of Litigation Fees* (implemented on April 1, 2007), compare claimable items, potential liability ratios, and costs, then determine the main litigation path and negotiation bottom lines. Since case-specific employment relationships, evidence completeness, and jurisdictional courts vary widely, conclusions may differ significantly. A prudent approach is to verify each item against timelines and subject lists, not to trust any outcome promises blindly, and not to mistakenly dismiss civil remedies just because the police refuse to file a case.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: When there is a conflict between work-related injuries and infringements, should the family choose to pursue one claim or both claims in parallel?

It is not advisable to repeatedly claim for the same damage item. Generally, one main path should be chosen, and the uncovered part can be compensated separately, depending on the employment relationship and the responsible party. Where there is an employment relationship and the circumstances meet the criteria for being deemed a work-related injury, the claimant should first apply for recognition to the social insurance administrative department of the unified area and claim benefits in accordance with the "Regulations on Work-Related Injury Insurance" (amended on December 20, 2010); where the same damage is caused by a third party's instigation or the platform or seller's failure to fulfill their obligations, the claimant may file a lawsuit for infringement in accordance with Article 1179 of the "Civil Code of the People's Republic of China" (effective on January 1, 2021), but generally, items such as funeral expenses that have already been compensated will not be counted twice. In this case, after the criminal case was not filed, the dispute shifted to civil tort liability, and the court handled the joint tort and guardian's liability in accordance with Article 169 of the Civil Code. This shows that the separation of procedures does not mean that remedies are mutually exclusive. It is recommended to prepare two lists to compare the work-related injury benefit items with the infringement claims, and then prioritize them to avoid counting the same items twice in both processes.

Q2: What steps must be taken to preserve the chat records in WeChat groups as evidence?

The key is to preserve the original evidence and ensure its verifiability. Simply taking screenshots is often insufficient to counter a defense of authenticity. In accordance with the requirements of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on December 24, 2021 and implemented on January 1, 2024) regarding electronic data, it is advisable to extract and preserve the complete chat history of the group discussing suicide methods, sharing suicide guides, guiding the measurement of doses and the preparation of solutions on the evening of December 7, and encouraging the first-time takers to drink again after vomiting. This should include the group members' accounts, timestamps, and the actual files. If necessary, obtain a notarization or apply for evidence preservation. In this case, Liu Shu and Zhao Gang found shocking chat records when sorting through the deceased's belongings, which provided the basis for subsequently identifying the defendants, Zhao *xin, Wu *, and Liu *xing, as maliciously instigating, guiding the preparation of poison, and drafting wills. At the same time, fix the forensic appraisal opinions to align the types of poison and the ingestion methods with the chat content; and request the platform and sellers to submit their review and warning records. Don't just take a few screenshots, nor wait until the account is deleted to make up for it later.

Q3: When claiming joint and several compensation for litigation fees from multiple guardians, what standard should be used to calculate the amount of compensation?

According to the litigation object amount, the advance payment is calculated in stages. The number of defendants itself is not charged separately, and the final burden is borne by the losing party or shared according to the proportion of liability. According to the "Measures for the Payment of Litigation Costs" (implemented on April 1, 2007), property cases are calculated based on the amount of the claim. In this case, involving the guardians of three group members, Zhao *xin, Wu *, and Liu *xing, as well as the platform and the seller, when claiming joint and several liability for compensation, the death-related compensation items can be combined into one litigation object for calculation, and there is no need to pay the advance payment separately according to the number of defendants. Those who meet the conditions for judicial aid can apply for deferral, reduction, or exemption of payment. Lawyer's fees are calculated based on the workload of the items under Article 1179 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (implemented on January 1, 2021), adopting a piecework, a percentage of the litigation object, or an hourly fee, subject to the contract for entrustment. If there are multiple responsible parties, it is necessary to add defendants or apply for appraisal, and the costs will be superimposed. It is advisable to specify the estimated litigation object, appraisal fees, and preservation fees before signing the contract, and then determine the pace of progress based on the calculated proportion.

Q4: How many months does it take to conclude the first-instance ordinary procedure for a joint infringement lawsuit?

The first-instance trial of ordinary procedures usually lasts six months, the simplified procedures three months, and the second-instance trial three months. The periods for appraisal, announcement, and adding defendants are calculated separately. This is based on the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on December 24, 2021 and implemented on January 1, 2024). In this case, involving the guardians of three group members, as well as the platform and sellers, the responsibility form and causation division are relatively complex. The court needs to first confirm the direct causal relationship between the incitement and guidance behaviors in the group and the death result, and then determine the joint infringement and the guardians' joint and several liability for compensation according to Article 1169 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (implemented on January 1, 2021). The trial intensity is higher than that of single defendant cases, and the scheduling is often close to the upper limit of the trial period. If there are jurisdictional objections, appraisals, or appraisers' appearances, the time will continue to be extended. It is recommended to record the evidentiary period, adding defendants, commissioning appraisals, and court hearing dates into a ledger from the filing of the case, and simultaneously check the advance payment and refund according to the Measures for the Payment of Litigation Fees (implemented on April 1, 2007). Do not regard the trial period as the entire cycle.

Q5: If I find incriminating messages in a group chat, should I first get the evidence notarized or report the case to the police on the same day?

The two can be pursued on the same day, but the priority action on that day is to fix the electronic data, then consider reporting the case. If the order is reversed, it may not be possible to recover the withdrawn messages. Follow these four steps: First, fully export and notarize the chat sessions in the group discussing suicide methods, sharing guide files, and guiding the measurement of doses and the preparation of solutions on the evening of December 7th, and retain the original mobile phone, account, time stamps, and file bodies. If necessary, apply for evidence preservation; then organize the forensic appraisal opinions and the subject's identity materials, align the types of poisons and the methods of ingestion with the chat content; subsequently, report the situation to the public security organ. If, as in this case, the case is not filed because all three group members are minors and have depression symptoms, there's no need to stop. Evaluate whether to shift to civil tort liability disputes in accordance with Article 1179 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (effective January 1, 2021); finally, check the jurisdiction and statutory time limits, and entrust professional lawyers to organize claims for joint infringement and guardian responsibility. In this case, Liu Shu and Zhao Gang entrusted lawyers to shift to civil rights protection after organizing the deceased's belongings and discovering the chat records, and the court was able to respond accordingly.

The above questions and answers are mainly based on judicial practice in Beijing. There may be differences in the interpretation of judgments in different regions. It is recommended to consult a professional lawyer based on the specific circumstances of the case.

If you are currently facing similar problems, it is recommended that you consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible with the necessary evidence to avoid missing the statutory time limits. →Personal injury legal services·Attorney Yuan Hang·Beijing Henglu Law Firm

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on the current effective laws and regulations and open adjudication rules, and is for general reference only. It does not constitute a formal legal opinion on specific cases. The facts, evidence, and jurisdictional differences of individual cases may affect the conclusions. If you encounter disputes, please consult a practicing lawyer in time.