Workplace Assault Leads to CNY 5,939 Compensation Award

In a case arising from a workplace argument that escalated into a physical attack outside the factory gate, a court in Eastern China City has ordered two former coworkers to pay a total of CNY 5,939.45 in damages to a fellow employee. The plaintiff, Mr. Wang, brought a civil claim for personal injury against Mr. Deng and Mr. Chen after being assaulted following a shift. The court found that both defendants were jointly liable but reduced the award because Mr. Wang shared part of the fault. The judgment highlights how Chinese courts handle injuries that occur outside the workplace yet stem from work-related disputes, and how the statute of limitations may be suspended during related criminal proceedings.

Mr. Wang, Mr. Deng, and Mr. Chen were all migrant workers employed at the same factory in Eastern China City. On September 14, 2010, an argument broke out among them during working hours. After the shift ended, Mr. Deng recruited Mr. Chen and another individual to wait for Mr. Wang’s son, Mr. Wang Jr., outside the factory gate. A physical confrontation followed, during which both Mr. Wang and his son were injured. Mr. Deng was later convicted of intentional injury in a criminal case and sentenced to imprisonment, while Mr. Chen remained at large at the time of the civil trial. Mr. Wang had not received any compensation for his losses. He therefore sued both defendants for a total of CNY 11,660.09, covering medical bills, lost wages, and other damages.

At the civil hearing, the court examined several pieces of evidence. Mr. Wang submitted the criminal judgment from Mr. Deng’s case, which confirmed the assault. He also provided a hospital-issued rest certificate showing the period he was unable to work, along with medical records and a medical expense reimbursement form from the county hospital. Additionally, a wage certificate from the employer indicated Mr. Wang’s monthly salary was CNY 2,800. Mr. Deng admitted the facts and agreed to pay compensation. Mr. Chen, who did not appear at trial, had submitted a written defense arguing that Mr. Wang bore primary responsibility and that the claim was time-barred. Mr. Chen also raised a jurisdictional objection, but the court noted that this objection was filed after the prescribed deadline and therefore rejected it.

The court found that Mr. Deng and Mr. Chen had jointly infringed Mr. Wang’s right to health. Under relevant Chinese tort law, victims may seek full or partial compensation from any joint tortfeasor. However, the court also determined that Mr. Wang had contributed to the incident. Because both sides bore some responsibility, the court held that the two defendants should pay 60 percent of the total proven losses. The court calculated Mr. Wang’s actual damages as follows: medical expenses of CNY 4,586.09, hospitalization meal subsidies of CNY 260, nursing fees of CNY 910, lost wages of CNY 4,013, and transportation costs of CNY 130, for a total of CNY 9,899.09. Applying the 60 percent ratio, the court ordered Mr. Deng and Mr. Chen to jointly pay CNY 5,939.45. The court also rejected Mr. Chen’s statute-of-limitations defense, ruling that the limitation period had been suspended while Mr. Deng’s criminal case was pending, because Mr. Wang faced a legal obstacle to filing a separate civil suit during that time.

The legal reasoning in this case rests on several provisions of the Tort Law of the People’s Republic of China. Article 6 establishes fault-based liability, while Article 13 allows victims to demand compensation from any one or all joint tortfeasors. Article 15 lists the forms of liability, including payment of damages, and Article 16 specifies compensation for medical expenses, lost income, and other injury-related costs. Article 26 introduces comparative fault: if the victim is also at fault, the tortfeasors’ liability may be reduced. The court applied these rules to allocate responsibility at 60 percent to the defendants and 40 percent to Mr. Wang. Furthermore, the court clarified that the civil statute of limitations is suspended when a criminal proceeding is underway and the victim cannot independently sue – a point that defeated Mr. Chen’s time-bar argument.

This judgment demonstrates that Chinese courts will not automatically hold an attacker fully liable if the injured party contributed to the altercation. The apportionment of fault reflects a common principle in personal injury litigation: both sides must bear proportionate responsibility. The ruling also underscores the importance of preserving evidence – Mr. Wang succeeded because he produced the criminal judgment, medical records, and wage documentation. Practitioners should note that the statute of limitations in hybrid criminal-civil cases may be paused, giving victims additional time to bring claims after the criminal case ends. The defendants were ordered to pay within ten days of the judgment, and failure to do so would result in double interest on the overdue amount. Mr. Chen’s absence from the trial did not prevent the court from issuing a binding decision against him.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.