Legal Relationship Between Industrial Injury Compensation And Tort Compensation

< p > < strong > [case]: < /strong > < /p >
< p > May 10, 2003, when a worker at a water pipe station repaired a high-voltage line, he was severely burned by high-voltage electrical shock. He was amputated below the left knee joint. He was identified as a 5 grade disability and was identified as a work-related injury by the labor bureau. After a dispute over the implementation of work-related injuries, a dispute between Wang and the plumbing station was awarded by the Labor Arbitration Commission on June 2004 30. The water treatment station paid a one-time payment of over 12.5 yuan for Wang's industrial injury and the cost of replacing the prosthetic leg later. < /p >
< p > July 21, 2004, when the power station was suddenly charged by the power station, the power station company was the defendant and Wang was the third person to file a civil action for tort compensation. In August 22, 2004, the county people's court made a first instance decision. It was considered that the power company had suddenly called to clarify the reasons after it had been informed of the blackout. It should assume the main responsibility of the electric shock accident; the water pipe station is the maintenance unit of the line, and does not have the safety protection equipment such as the electroplating earth wire, and arranges Wang's upper pole operation without special operation certificate. It has faults and is directly related to the damage consequences, and should bear secondary responsibilities. Ordered the electric power company to bear the cost of Wang's disability due to injury and 8 yuan and 60% of the later replacement of the prosthetic expenses, and the water station was responsible for more than 4 yuan and later treatment cost of 40%. < /p >
＜p＞　　电力公司不服一审判决，提起上诉，结果二审法院以下述四个理由判决撤销了原判，驳回了水管站的诉讼请求：1、水管站代为受害人王某向电力公司主张侵权民事权利属诉讼请求不当，受害人王某的民事权益只能由其自己依法提起;2、王某的工伤已经劳动仲裁享受了工伤待遇，按《国务院劳动部办公厅劳办发(1997)51号对〈关于工伤确认等问题的请示〉的复函》精神规定，享受了工伤待遇的，就不能再获得其他民事侵权赔偿;3、水管站如果有证据证明事故是电力公司的过错造成，在落实工伤待遇后可以向电力公司行使追偿权，但现水管站提供的证据不足以证明电力公司对该起事故有过错;4、水管站指派无特种技术作业证的王某从事高压作业，违反劳动法规，同时水管站又是该高压线路的产权人和维护人，应对该起事故承担全部民事责任。 < /p >
After "P", the water station did not comply with the two verdict, and because of financial difficulties and other reasons, it has not implemented Wang's industrial injury treatment, which led to Wang and his family members and relatives to encircling plumbing stations, power companies and local governments. In November 2008, the direct cause of the accident was caused by the sudden violation of the electricity supply of the power company after the power failure. The main responsibility for civil compensation should be borne by the water power station, and the report submitted to the people's Congress and the court for retrial should be submitted to the people's Congress and the court as the reason that the water station has the right to claim the claim on behalf of the king. < /p >
< p > < < a > > href= > //www.sjfzxm.com/news/index_c.asp > > court > /a > review. It is considered that the second instance decision is to replace the victim with a water station in entity handling. Since the case is a third party tort compensation suit filed by the power station as a defendant in the water power station, such a lawsuit, the Supreme People's court's interpretation of several issues concerning the application of the law in the case of personal injury compensation (hereinafter referred to as "interpretation") clearly stipulates that the victim who is directly injured by the person or his dependant and the next of kin of the death victim shall be entitled to bring up the employer, and the employer shall not have the right to direct or subrogate. From the point of view of procedural operation, the application for retrial of the applicant's water station has exceeded the statutory time limit of two years, and the people's court shall not accept it. < /p >
< p > < strong > [comments]: < /strong > < /p >
< p > 1, the case does not comply with the accepted conditions of < a href= "//www.sjfzxm.com/news/index_c.asp > > civil law < /a > 108, shall be ruled to dismiss the prosecution. < /p >
< p > the 108th conditions of the civil procedure law are: "the plaintiff is a citizen, legal person and other organization directly related to the case". The so-called "a href=" //www.sjfzxm.com/news/index_c.asp "> interest /a <" means that the plaintiff has the right or obligation in the civil legal relationship reflected in the facts of his claim, and the plaintiff's water station, as the plaintiff in this case, does not have the right or obligation to sue in the power damage compensation lawsuit filed by him. He substitutes Wang to the power company for the infringement of the lawsuit and has no direct interest in the case. The people's court should not file the case for acceptance, even if it has accepted it, it should also decide to reject the action. < /p >
< p > If a water station is a lawsuit brought against arbitration, then the power company should not be the defendant, but Wang should be referred to the defendant for a labor dispute lawsuit. According to the forty-eighth, forty-ninth provision of the labor dispute mediation and arbitration law, after May 1, 2008, if the worker disagrees with the arbitral award, he may bring a lawsuit to the court. If the employer refuses to accept it, he can only apply to the intermediate court for revocation of the award. < /p >
< p > the court of first instance did not clarify the legal relationship between them, which was wrongfully accepted, resulting in subsequent wrong decisions. Although the court of second instance recognized that the plaintiff was not well qualified, he did not decide to dismiss the case. Instead, the court dismissed the claim and made a mistake in applying the law. < /p >
< p > two, work-related injury workers can also claim injury compensation and third party tort compensation. < /p >
< < p > > in 1996, the twenty-eighth article of the Trial Measures for work-related injury insurance for employees of enterprises and the reply of the office of the Ministry of labor of the Ministry of labour of the State Council (1997) 51 to the instructions for the confirmation of industrial injuries, clearly stipulated that when the liability for industrial injury insurance is concurring with other tort liability liabilities such as traffic accidents, the workers who enjoy industrial injury insurance will no longer receive other civil tort compensation, that is, the principle of compensation for difference in work injury insurance. However, the "method" and "reply letter" were in contradiction with the regulations on work-related injury insurance implemented in January 1, 2004 and the interpretations implemented in May 1, 2004. Moreover, the liability concurrence in the case only exists in the water supply station and does not exist in the third person power company. That is to say, after claiming the industrial injury insurance benefits to the water pipe station, Wang can not claim any other civil tort compensation from the water supply station, but he can claim compensation for civil infringement to the third power company. In accordance with the provisions of the second paragraph of the twelfth article of the interpretation, the personal injury caused by the infringement of third persons other than the employing unit shall be borne by the obligee. The people's court shall support the claim of the third party for the civil liability for compensation. Therefore, if the personal injury of Wang is caused by the illegal transmission of electricity by the third power company, he will have the right to request the third power company to bear civil liability for compensation in accordance with the industrial injury insurance Ordinance. But since then, Wang has not sued the court for the third power company to bear civil liability for compensation, indicating that he has given up the litigation right. < /p >
< p > three, the employer's compensation for work-related injuries is the legal obligation of the employer, and shall not be deducted by the employee's waiver of the third party's tort compensation proceedings. The employer can not exercise the right of subrogation in the case of a worker who has given up the action of tort compensation for the third party. < /p >
< p > the right of subrogation is a special right granted by the insurance law to insurance companies in order to prevent the insured or beneficiaries from creating insurance accidents for obtaining multiple compensation. However, the existing laws and regulations on industrial injury compensation do not give the employer or the industrial injury insurance agency the right of subrogation. Therefore, whether the victim claims the right to the infringer should not be a precondition for the payment of work-related injury insurance, nor can he replace the victim's claim for rights. < /p >
< p > four, the arbitration award in this case is still valid. < /p >
< p > Wang's industrial injury treatment has been delayed for a long time. In addition to people's understanding error, there are also objective factors such as the reform of water station system and lack of funds. In the litigation, the parties or even the original law enforcement officers mixed up the legal relationship between the industrial injury treatment and the third party's tort, and at the same time, they did not know enough about the docking of the old and new laws, which led to the wrong cases in the first instance and some wrong viewpoints in the second instance. Before 2004, China should apply 1996 of the "measures" and the 1997 "reply", that is, workers with industrial injury shall not enjoy double compensation and the employer can exercise the right of subrogation. However, after 2004, the regulations and interpretations have been implemented, and the regulations no longer require the employing units to enjoy the right of subrogation. The interpretation gives the workers with work-related injury the right to apply for double compensation. Although Wang suffered a work-related injury in 2003, he applied for labour arbitration and filed a lawsuit against the court. After 2004, the new law should be applied. Due to the fact that it is not clear, the wrong party has brought up the wrong lawsuit, and the court of first instance has wrongly accepted and made a wrong decision. If a water station refuses to accept labor arbitration, it should have filed a labor dispute lawsuit with Wang as the defendant, but he took the electric company as a defendant instead of Wang. After the two trial was dismissed, the water station erroneously believed that the labor arbitration was invalid, and therefore refused to carry out the arbitral award. As far as I know, labor arbitration has been legally applied by both employers and work-related injury workers. Wang can apply to the people's court for enforcement of the award. < /p >