Appellate Court Upholds 72,000 Yuan Award for Construction Worker Injured on Job in Employer Liability Case

Appellate Court Upholds 72,000 Yuan Award for Construction Worker Injured on Job in Employer Liability Case

CASE OVERVIEW

A Chinese appellate court has upheld a lower court decision awarding approximately 72,000 yuan in damages to a construction worker who suffered severe injuries after falling from height while working on a building site. The case, heard in Eastern China, involved a dispute over whether the injured worker was an employee of the project contractor or a private individual hired by a work crew leader. The court confirmed the existence of an employer-employee relationship and rejected claims that the matter should be treated as a workplace injury subject to labor arbitration.

CASE BACKGROUND AND FACTS

Mr. Song, a rural resident, was hired by Mr. Gui to work on a construction project managed by Zhejiang Tengsheng Construction Company. On October 11, 2009, around 8:30 AM, Mr. Song fell from a height while working at the site. He sustained severe injuries including a comminuted fracture of the proximal right ulna and radius, elbow dislocation, nerve and vascular damage to the right elbow, and skin lacerations. He was hospitalized for one month and underwent surgery. Mr. Gui paid the hospital medical expenses of approximately 34,024 yuan and provided an additional 6,000 yuan to Mr. Song between October and December 2009.

After discharge, Mr. Song continued treatment and incurred further medical costs of 452 yuan. A forensic鉴定 report dated January 19, 2010, classified his injuries as a Grade 9 disability, noting permanent impairment including loss of over 50 percent of right elbow function. The report recommended an additional 6,000 yuan for future surgery to remove internal fixation hardware, a 12-week nutrition period, and a 16-week nursing period.

Mr. Song is married with three dependent children: a son born in 1996, and two daughters born in 1994 and 2001.

COURT PROCEEDINGS AND EVIDENCE

Mr. Song filed a lawsuit in February 2010, claiming total damages of 118,532 yuan, including lost wages, nursing fees, medical expenses, disability compensation, future medical costs, and dependent support. Mr. Gui argued that Mr. Song was actually an employee of the construction company, not a personal employee, and that the case should first go through labor arbitration as a workplace injury claim.

The trial court found that Mr. Gui had personally hired Mr. Song, and a written employment document signed by Mr. Gui confirmed this relationship. The court rejected Mr. Gui’s argument, holding that the employer-employee relationship was clear and that the injured worker could sue directly. The trial court awarded 78,183 yuan in total damages, reduced by the 6,000 yuan already paid, resulting in a net award of 72,183 yuan.

Both parties appealed. Mr. Song sought higher amounts for certain items including transportation, nutrition, and dependent support, and argued for separate compensation for emotional distress. Mr. Gui continued to argue that no employment relationship existed and that the matter should be handled as a workplace injury.

On appeal, Mr. Gui submitted a new document from the construction company project department claiming that Mr. Song was hired on behalf of the company. The appellate court refused to accept this as new evidence, noting it was not submitted during the trial. The court also found that the document alone was insufficient to overturn the signed employment letter from Mr. Gui.

COURT FINDINGS AND JUDGMENT

The appellate court confirmed that Mr. Gui employed Mr. Song and that Mr. Gui, as employer, must bear liability for injuries suffered during work activities. The court rejected the argument that the case should be treated as a workplace injury requiring labor arbitration, finding insufficient evidence of a direct employment relationship between Mr. Song and the construction company.

The court upheld the trial court’s calculation of damages, including 8,100 yuan for lost wages, 8,520 yuan for nursing care, 750 yuan for hospitalization meals, 500 yuan for nutrition, 169 yuan for transportation, 37,230 yuan for disability compensation, 800 yuan for鉴定 fees, 6,000 yuan for future surgery, and 15,662 yuan for dependent child support. The total award after deducting the 6,000 yuan already paid was 72,183 yuan.

The appellate court found no legal basis for including陪护人员 costs in the lost wages or meal compensation. It also held that emotional distress damages were not separately available in this type of employer liability case, though it noted the trial court had incorrectly stated that such damages were included within disability compensation.

The court dismissed both appeals and affirmed the original judgment.

KEY LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Employers are liable for injuries suffered by employees during work activities, even without fault on the part of the employer. This is known as no-fault liability in employer-employee injury cases.

A signed employment document carries significant weight in establishing an employment relationship, even if the employer later claims the document was not voluntary or accurate.

Workplace injury claims must be distinguished from employer liability claims. Where no formal labor contract exists and wages are not paid by the company, the relationship may be one of personal employment rather than formal employment.

Compensation for emotional distress is not automatically included within disability compensation, but neither is it automatically available in employer liability cases.

PRACTICAL INSIGHTS

This case highlights the importance of clear documentation regarding employment relationships in the construction industry. Workers who are directly hired by individual crew leaders may have stronger claims against those individuals if injured on site. For employers, the case serves as a reminder that signed employment documents are difficult to later disavow.

The court’s refusal to accept late-submitted evidence underscores the importance of presenting all relevant documentation during the trial phase. Parties should not rely on introducing new evidence during appeal.

The case also illustrates that courts will carefully examine whether a worker is truly an employee of a company or a personal employee of an individual supervisor, with significant consequences for how injury claims are handled.

LEGAL REFERENCES

General Principles of the Civil Law of the People’s Republic of China, Article 106
Supreme People’s Court Interpretation on Compensation for Personal Injury, Articles 1, 11, 17
Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, Article 153, Paragraph 1, Item 1
Supreme People’s Court Provisions on Evidence in Civil Proceedings, Article 2

DISCLAIMER

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws and regulations vary by jurisdiction and may change over time. Readers should consult a qualified legal professional for advice specific to their situation.