Court Awards 119,230 Yuan in Compensation for Fatal Farm Accident: Employer Liability in a Worker Death Case

Court Awards 119,230 Yuan in Compensation for Fatal Farm Accident: Employer Liability in a Worker Death Case

CASE OVERVIEW

A Chinese civil court has ordered two defendants, Mr. Han and Ms. Jiang, to pay 119,230 yuan in compensation to the brothers of a deceased worker. The worker, Mr. Mao, died after falling from a pigsty roof while repairing it for the defendants. The court found the defendants, as employers, liable for 70 percent of the total damages. The case highlights key principles of employer liability for workplace injuries in domestic agricultural settings.

CASE BACKGROUND AND FACTS

The plaintiffs, Mr. Mao A, Mr. Mao B, and Mr. Mao C, are the brothers of the deceased, Mr. Mao D. Mr. Mao D was a single man with no other close relatives. The defendants, Mr. Han A and Ms. Jiang A, are a married couple. Their son, Mr. Han B, was also named as a defendant but lived and worked separately from his parents.

Starting in 2001 or 2002, Mr. Han A and Ms. Jiang A hired Mr. Mao D on a long-term basis to raise pigs and perform other farm chores at their home in a rural area of Eastern China. On the morning of October 15, 2009, Mr. Mao D was repairing the pigsty roof when a beam broke. He fell, sustaining severe injuries. He was taken to a hospital but died from his injuries.

Following the accident, Mr. Han A paid 6,000 yuan in medical costs. He and Ms. Jiang then left their home and went to stay with their son, Mr. Han B, who worked in another city. Local government officials and village leaders intervened. On November 4, 2009, the defendants authorized Mr. Han B’s wife to sign a preliminary agreement with the plaintiffs, paying an advance of 20,000 yuan for funeral expenses. After this payment, the defendants became unreachable and failed to engage in further negotiations.

COURT PROCEEDINGS AND EVIDENCE

The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit on September 25, 2010, seeking 70 percent of their total claimed losses of 248,733 yuan. After deducting the 26,000 yuan already paid by the defendants, the plaintiffs demanded 148,113 yuan. The total claimed losses included medical expenses of 45,700 yuan, death compensation of 185,160 yuan, a refrigeration fee of 800 yuan, and funeral expenses of 17,073 yuan. During the trial, the plaintiffs voluntarily dropped their claim for medical expenses.

The defendants did not appear in court. They were served with the complaint and summons by public notice but failed to respond or provide any evidence. The court treated their absence as a waiver of their right to contest the plaintiffs’ claims and evidence.

The plaintiffs submitted multiple pieces of evidence, including hospital records, a death certificate, invoices for refrigeration and funeral costs, and mediation documents. Two witnesses testified that Mr. Mao D was indeed employed by the defendants. The court found all evidence to be authentic, lawful, and relevant.

COURT FINDINGS AND JUDGMENT

The court held that Mr. Mao D was an employee of Mr. Han A and Ms. Jiang A. Under Chinese law, an employer is liable for injuries suffered by an employee during the course of employment. Since Mr. Mao D died while performing a task assigned by his employers, the defendants were responsible for compensation.

The court calculated the total compensable losses as 198,900 yuan. This figure included a death compensation of 185,160 yuan (calculated as 9,258 yuan per year for 20 years) and funeral expenses of 13,740 yuan (50 percent of the average annual wage of 27,480 yuan for workers in Zhejiang Province in 2009). The court rejected the claim for the 800 yuan refrigeration fee, ruling that it was already covered by the funeral expense calculation.

The court accepted the plaintiffs’ request for the defendants to bear 70 percent of the total liability. This resulted in a liability of 139,230 yuan. After deducting the 20,000 yuan already paid for funeral costs, the court ordered Mr. Han A and Ms. Jiang A to pay a net amount of 119,230 yuan to the plaintiffs.

The court dismissed the claim against Mr. Han B, the son. It found that Mr. Han B was married, lived away from home, and was not involved in his parents’ farming business. There was no legal basis to hold him jointly liable.

KEY LEGAL PRINCIPLES

This case applies several established legal principles. Under Article 119 of the General Principles of Civil Law, compensation is required for physical injury or death caused by fault. The Supreme People’s Court’s Interpretation on Personal Injury Compensation confirms that employers are liable for injuries sustained by employees during work activities. The court also applied the principle that when a plaintiff bears some responsibility, the defendant’s liability may be reduced to a proportional share, in this case 70 percent.

PRACTICAL INSIGHTS

This case offers important lessons for both employers and workers in informal or agricultural settings. Even in non-industrial workplaces like family farms, a long-term working relationship can create an employer-employee relationship with legal duties. Employers should ensure safe working conditions and consider obtaining liability insurance. Workers should understand that they have rights to compensation for work-related injuries. For plaintiffs, thorough documentation of evidence, including witness testimony and official records, is critical when defendants fail to appear. The case also shows that family members who are not involved in the business are unlikely to be held liable.

LEGAL REFERENCES

General Principles of the Civil Law of the People’s Republic of China, Article 119.
Supreme People’s Court’s Interpretation on Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Personal Injury Compensation Cases, Articles 1, 11, and 17.
Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, Articles 64 and 130.

DISCLAIMER

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws and judicial interpretations may vary by jurisdiction and over time. Readers should consult a qualified legal professional for advice on specific legal matters.