Sudden death after work hours: First-instance judgment ruled it not to constitute a work-related death

Thread Content

For the first time in the second instance, the Tort Liability Law was applied, and the family members finally received compensation. A company employee was required to work overtime until early morning and died suddenly in the staff dormitory after work; in cases where it does not constitute a work-related death, is it still necessary for the employer to provide compensation? Recently, the Intermediate People’s Court of Suzhou City, Jiangsu Province, heard a case in which the Tort Liability Law was applied for the first time to determine that an employer must bear corresponding responsibility for the sudden death of an employee. 　　Dying suddenly from working overtime until the early morning is not considered a work-related death. On April 1, 2013, Li started working at an electronics company in Kunshan. On December 12 of the same year, Li was assigned to work overtime until after 1 a.m., and then returned to the dormitory to rest. Around 11 p.m. that day, his roommates in the same dormitory noticed that Li was still lying in bed and had not gone to work. Noticing something strange, the roommate went over to remind Li that it was time to go to work, only to find him unconscious. The roommate then called the police. According to the diagnosis by medical authorities, Li died suddenly at the scene. 　　Afterward, Li’s parents filed a lawsuit in court, requesting that the electronics company be ordered to pay compensation in the amount of over 860,000 yuan, covering death benefits, expenses for dependents, and funeral costs, in accordance with the law. 　　The court of first instance found, after reviewing the case, that Li died in the company dormitory after work, and the cause of death could not be determined; according to the provisions of China’s work-related injury insurance regulations, such a situation does not constitute a work-related death ； At the same time, the existing evidence also fails to prove that the electronics company was at fault for Li’s death; therefore, the court of first instance dismissed the lawsuit filed by Li’s parents. Li’s parents were not satisfied with the first-instance judgment and appealed to the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court. 　　Overtime work that exceeds reasonable limits seriously neglects the protection of employees’ health. The Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court found, through its investigation, that on December 11, 2013, the day before Li’s sudden death, his working hours were from 4 p.m. to 12 a.m., and the electronics company also required him to work additional 1.5 hours beyond those hours. According to the investigation records conducted by the public security authorities after the incident, Li returned straight to his dormitory to rest after work in the early hours of the 12th, without stopping at any other places to engage in activities that could be harmful to his health. Li’s death has ruled out the possibility of a criminal case or foul play, and preliminary diagnoses by medical institutions indicate that it was sudden death at the scene. Li’s physical examination report from June 2013 indicated that he had no underlying diseases and was in good health. 　　“The day before Li’s sudden death, he worked until 12 p.m.; this working hours pattern conflicted with the regular daily routine of an ordinary person. It was therefore inappropriate to arrange for him to work overtime at that time, especially since the extended overtime period exceeded 1 hour. ”Bao Gang, head of the Fourth Civil Division of the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court and the presiding judge in this case, explained that according to China’s labor law, unless there are special reasons, employers are generally allowed to arrange no more than one hour of overtime per day. In this case, the electronics company failed to provide evidence showing that there were special reasons for scheduling Li to work overtime for more than 1 hour on that day, nor did it provide evidence demonstrating that it had taken any health protection measures for Li. Although Li’s parents clearly stated that they would not apply for a judicial expertise assessment after being informed by the court, it is common knowledge in both daily life and medicine that high work intensity, heavy work pressure, and unhealthy schedules are harmful to one’s health. 　　It is for this reason that the court of second instance held that the electronics company seriously neglected to protect Li’s physical health, thereby violating Li’s legitimate rights and interests; therefore, an act of infringement should be recognized, and the company was at fault subjectively. 　　“Based on the evidence available in this case, it is not possible to conclude that there is an inevitable and direct causal relationship between Electronic Company’s arrangement for Li to work overtime in the early hours and Li’s sudden death. However, given the close sequence of events – Li going to work, returning to his dormitory to sleep, and then dying suddenly – and applying common sense, such a causal relationship cannot be ruled out either. ”It is stated in the second-instance judgment of this case. 　　Ultimately, considering that the causes of sudden death were also related to various factors such as Li’s personal physical condition and his ability to adjust mentally and physically, and given the multiple contributing factors and certain element of randomness, and since it was not possible to determine the extent of causal involvement in this case, the appellate court, in accordance with the rules regarding the allocation of the burden of proof and the principles of fairness and reasonableness, decided that the electronics company should bear 40% of the liability for the losses resulting from Li’s death. 　Recently, the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court issued a final judgment, ordering the electronics company to pay Mr. Li’s parents compensation for their deaths and other related losses, totaling over 230,000 yuan, in accordance with the law. 　　How is sudden death after work defined? How to protect one’s rights? 　　What is sudden death? The World Health Organization defines it as: “The sudden death of a patient who is normally healthy or appears healthy, due to a natural disease, within an unexpected short period of time.” ”This also shows that for most ordinary workers, sudden death is related to high work intensity, heavy work pressure, and irregular work hours. 　　Currently, cases of sudden death among workers are frequently reported in the news, and this trend is on the rise. Once sudden death occurs, how can the legitimate rights and interests of workers be protected? 　　According to Chinese law, if a worker dies suddenly from an illness at work or at the workplace, or dies within 48 hours despite emergency treatment, it can be recognized as a work-related death or treated as such, and the worker or their close relatives may receive benefits under work-related death insurance. However, if a worker dies suddenly at home after work, and it is not considered an occupational death according to the regulations, how can the worker’s rights be protected by law? This is a challenging issue in current judicial practice. According to Article 2 of the Tort Liability Law of the People’s Republic of China: “Those who infringe upon civil rights and interests shall bear tort liability in accordance with this Law.” The civil rights and interests referred to in this Law include the right to life, the right to health, etc.” Article 6 stipulates: “A person who, through fault, infringes upon the civil rights and interests of others shall bear liability for tort. ”“If a worker dies suddenly after work, the family members cannot receive insurance benefits for work-related death since it does not constitute a work-related injury. However, if the employer is at fault for the worker’s sudden death, the family members can, in accordance with the aforementioned legal provisions, demand that the employer assume liability for the infringement. ”Bao Gang said. 　It is understood that regarding cases of such workers dying suddenly after work, although there are theoretical arguments in academic circles suggesting claims based on compensation for personal injury, to date there have been no reports of courts applying the tort law to resolve disputes over workers’ sudden deaths after work. Therefore, the second-instance judgment in this case protected the legitimate rights and interests of workers by innovating the application of law, providing a new pathway for workers (and their family members) in similar cases to assert their rights.