When 120 emergency personnel arrived at the scene, the worker’s heartbeat and breathing had stopped.
Sun contacted Xing.
The legal relationship between the parties was identified according to the facts stated and identified by the parties in the inquiry records and court trial, and the identification of the accident process and cause analysis by the administrative organ.
Combined with the photos of the chicken shed at the scene of the accident attached to the accident investigation report issued by Anqiu Emergency Management Bureau and the contents of the demolition of the chicken shed involved in the party’s statement, although the technical content of the construction projects such as the demolition of the chicken shed is not high, the construction content is highly dangerous from the structure and material of the chicken shed, and the construction should have corresponding safety conditions.
When the construction personnel suffered personal damage due to safety production accidents, how should the responsibilities of the employer, the employer and the intermediary be divided? The case is in a town in Anqiu, Weifang.
▼ for more information, long press | scan QR code © Shandong Gaofa Author: Li Mei author unit: Weifang Anqiu court editor: Shi Wisdom Reviewed by Hao Mingjie: Fu Dehui’s proposal to the petitioners from Shandong high court.
Xing, as the employer, contacted seven workers for construction and agreed on the salary.
According to Article 35 of the tort liability law of the people’s Republic of China, “if a labor relationship is formed between individuals, and the party providing labor services causes damage to others due to labor services, the party receiving labor services shall bear tort liability; if the party providing labor services suffers damage due to its own labor services, it shall bear corresponding liability according to the respective faults of both parties.” As a party receiving labor services, Xing failed to provide safe production conditions and fulfill his safety protection obligations.
The maximum law specifies that these seven types of companies are not limited by 4x LPR.
No written contract was signed for the focus labor construction, and no safety protection was carried out during the construction.
He should bear the main liability for compensation for the consequences of injuries and deaths of construction personnel in the process of providing labor services.
Later, the worker’s family sued the court to order Zhao’s husband and wife, sun Xing’s four people jointly compensated the plaintiff for death compensation, funeral expenses and other losses, totaling more than 730000 yuan.
Don’t think that the maximum interest rate for borrowing is 15.4%.
As the labor contract awarding party, Zhao and his wife asked sun, the middleman, to help find someone to dismantle the chicken shed of the farm.
Who owns the ground parking space in the community? The judgment is coming! Don’t forget to click “looking” at the bottom right to add chicken legs to Xiaobian..
Zhao and his wife assumed joint and several compensation obligations for Xing’s compensation liability and compensated the plaintiff for the loss of 43.7 yuan.
Zhao and his wife have operated a farm in the form of individual industrial and commercial households since 2015.
According to the above determined compensation liability and liability ratio, Xing was finally judged to compensate the plaintiff for the loss of 437000 yuan according to law.
Then Xing organized and contacted the construction personnel to provide labor services for dismantling the chicken shed.
In this case, there was no written contract between the parties.
As a person with full capacity for civil conduct, injured and dead workers should be able to foresee the consequences of engaging in dangerous operations without safe production conditions, but they do not take corresponding protective measures, and do not take appropriate and effective protective measures to continue construction in case of a fall.
The construction content is to replace the chicken canopy and heighten the walls on both sides.
As for whether sun should bear the liability for compensation, because sun is the intermediary of labor services for Zhao’s husband and wife and Xing, he does not have profit-making behavior, nor is he the employer and contractor of labor services, but provides labor services for Xing as construction personnel, and there is no direct legal relationship or causal relationship between sun and the injured and dead workers, so he does not bear the liability for compensation To sum up, the court finally determined that Xing should bear 60% of the compensation liability, Zhao and his wife should jointly bear joint and several compensation obligations for Xing’s compensation liability, and sun should not bear compensation liability.
They are also at fault and should bear part of the responsibility.
In August 2020, due to the need to transform the chicken shed of the farm, Zhao and his wife, as the employer, contacted the middleman sun to help find the construction personnel.
The amount of wages and settlement methods were finally determined and settled by Xing and Zhao, and then Xing distributed them to the construction personnel.
The focus of the dispute in this case mainly focuses on the legal relationship between the injured and dead worker and the four defendants of Zhao, sun and Xing, and whether the four defendants should be liable for compensation.
In combination with the statements of the parties concerned, Xing extracted 10 yuan from the salary of each construction worker and had profit-making behavior in the process of organizing construction, so it should be recognized that the construction workers provided labor services for Xing.
At the same time, it was determined that the death compensation was more than 677000 yuan and the funeral expenses were more than 42000 yuan.
The construction content Working hours, working methods and other specific construction arrangements were directly determined by Xing to the construction personnel, while Zhao did not directly contact the construction personnel.
However, they did not improve their safety awareness.
According to paragraph 2 of Article 11 of the interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues concerning the application of law in the trial of personal injury compensation cases: “If an employee suffers personal injury due to work safety accidents in his employment activities, and the employer or subcontractor knows or should know that the employer accepting the contract or subcontracting business does not have corresponding qualifications or work safety conditions, he shall bear joint and several liability with the employer.” Zhao and his wife, as the employer, have a relatively strict duty of care for Xing who should have safe construction conditions.
If they contract the construction content to Xing who does not have safe construction conditions, they shall bear joint and several liability for the consequences of injury and death in the project of providing labor services to workers.
During the construction, a worker fell from the roof without injury when removing the foam panel on the top of the chicken shed.
Lu FA case [2021] 265.
Sun recommended and contacted Xing to inform him of the labor content.
After hearing, the court held that Xing, as an employer, failed to provide safety production conditions and fulfill his safety protection obligations, and should bear 60% of the liability for compensation; As a person with full civil capacity, the injured and dead workers shall bear part of the responsibility if they fail to take corresponding protective measures; Zhao and his wife, as the employer, shall be jointly and severally liable for contracting out the construction content to Xing who does not meet the construction safety conditions; As an intermediary, sun is not liable for compensation.
During the continuous operation, the worker fell from the 2.9-meter-high ceiling to the ground again, and his head hit the cement table, resulting in severe craniocerebral injury.
During the construction, the employer Xing himself also participated in the construction.
