Copyright 2015 by Stanford University

SUN Lixing

v.

The Labor and Personnel Bureau of Tianjin New Technology Industrial Park,

A Work-Related Injuries Determination Case

Guiding Case No. 40

(Discussed and Passed by the Adjudication Committee of the Supreme People’s Court

Released on December 25, 2014)

CHINA GUIDING CASES PROJECT

English Guiding Case (EGC40)

September 15, 2015 Edition*

* The citation of this translation of the Guiding Case is: 《孙立兴诉天津新技术产业园区劳动人事局工伤

认定案》(SUN Lixing v. The Labor and Personnel Bureau of Tianjin New Technology Industrial Park, A Work-

Related Injuries Determination Case), CHINA GUIDING CASES PROJECT, English Guiding Case (EGC40), Sept. 15,

2015 Edition, available at http://cgc.law.stanford.edu/guiding-cases/guiding-case-40.

This document was primarily prepared by Jasmine Chen, Oma Lee, Wen Ou, Thomas Rimmer, Lorraine

Menghan Wan, Yi Yao, and Hui Zhang. The document was finalized by Sean Webb, Jordan Corrente Beck, and Dr.

Mei Gechlik. Minor editing, such as splitting long paragraphs, adding a few words included in square brackets, and

boldfacing the headings to correspond with those boldfaced in the original Chinese version, was done to make the

piece more comprehensible to readers. The following text, otherwise, is a direct translation of the original text and

reflects the formatting of the Chinese document released by the Supreme People’s Court.

The following Guiding Case was discussed and passed by the Adjudication Committee of the Supreme

People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China and was released on December 25, 2014, available at

http://www.chinacourt.org/article/detail/2014/12/id/1524376.shtml. See also 《最高人民法院关于发布第九批指

导性案例的通知》 (The Supreme People’s Court’s Notice Concerning the Release of the Ninth Batch of Guiding

Cases), Dec. 24, 2014, available at http://rmfyb.chinacourt.org/paper/images/2014-12/26/02/2014122602_pdf.

2015.09.15 Edition

Copyright 2015 by Stanford University

2

Keywords

Administrative Work-Related Injuries Determination

Work-Related Reasons Workplace Fault at Work

Main Points of the Adjudication

1. [The phrase] “because of work-related reasons” as set forth in Article 14, Item 1

of the Regulation on Work-Related Injury Insurance refers to [a situation where] the relationship

between a worker’s injuries and the job duties he1 is engaged in is [one of] association.

2. [The term] “workplace” as set forth in Article 14 Item 1 of the Regulation on

Work-Related Injury Insurance2

refers to a place that is related to a worker’s work

responsibilities. Where there are multiple workplaces, [the term “workplace”] also includes

reasonable areas through which a worker travels when going between these multiple workplaces

during work hours.

3. [The fact that] a worker is at fault while engaged in his job duties is not [one of]

the circumstancesintentionally committing a crime, being drunk or using drugs, or self-

mutilating or committing suicideset forth in Article 16 of the Regulation on Work-Related

Injury Insurance and [thus] does not affect a determination of [whether that worker’s] injuries

are work-related.

Related Legal Rule(s)

Article 14 Item 1 and Article 16 of the Regulation on Work-Related Injury Insurance

Basic Facts of the Case

Plaintiff SUN Lixing3 (孙立兴) claimed: He fell and was injured during work hours, at

the workplace, and because of work-related reasons. [His situation] conformed with the

circumstances set forth in the Regulation on Work-Related Injury Insurance. The decision of the

1 Translators’ note: “he”, “him”, and “his” as used in this Guiding Case are, unless the context indicates

otherwise, gender-neutral terms that may refer to “she” and “her”. 2 《工伤保险条例》(Regulation on Work-Related Injury Insurance), passed by the State Council on Apr.

16, 2003, issued on Apr. 27, 2003, effective as of Jan. 1, 2004, amended on Dec. 8, 2010, effective as of Jan. 1,

2011, available at http://www.gov.cn/zwgk/2010-12/24/content_1772115.htm. 3 Translators’ note: masculine pronouns are used to refer to this plaintiff because the name “立兴” (“Lixing”)

is more commonly found among males.

2015.09.15 Edition

Copyright 2015 by Stanford University

3

Labor and Personnel Bureau of Tianjin New Technology Industrial Park (天津新技术产业园区

劳动人事局) (hereinafter referred to as the “Park Labor Bureau”) not to determine [SUN

Lixing’s injuries] as work-related injuries was [based on] an erroneous determination of facts and

an improper application of law. [Therefore, SUN Lixing] requested that [the court] revoke the

Written Decision on Making a Determination of Work-Related Injuries rendered by the Park

Labor Bureau and order the Park Labor Bureau to carry out a new [administrative] act to

determine [the nature] of [his] injuries.

The Park Labor Bureau, the defendant, defended its position, claiming: SUN Lixing, a

salesperson of Tianjin Zhongli Lightning Protection Technology Co., Ltd.4 (hereinafter referred

to as “Zhongli Company”), was injured while [he] was out on business. However, [he] did not

suffer injuries because of work-related reasons, but because of lack of focus; [SUN Lixing]

missed a step while going down the stairs, fell, and injured [himself]. There was no obvious

causal relationship between the resulting injuries and the work assignment that he accepted.

Therefore, SUN Lixing’s [situation] did not conform with [any of] the circumstances under

which injuries should be determined to be work-related, as set forth in the Regulation on Work-

Related Injury Insurance. The decision rendered by the Park Labor Bureau to not determine

[SUN Lixing’s] injuries as work-related was [based on] clear facts, sufficient evidence, and legal

procedures, and should be upheld.

Third-Party Zhongli Company stated: Because the company implemented a “bottom-out”

system,5

SUN Lixing was already “out” [of the company] before the accident occurred.

However, because [SUN Lixing] had formerly engaged in company sales and still had an

obligation to collect outstanding payments for the goods [sold], [he] occasionally came back to

the company to make phone calls. At the time of the incident, SUN Lixing was not an employee

of the company, nor were his fall and injury within the scope of the company’s workplace.

[Therefore, SUN Lixing’s incident] did not meet the necessary conditions for a determination

that the [resulting] injuries were work-related.

The court handled the case and ascertained: SUN Lixing was an employee of Zhongli

Company. On the morning of June 10, 2003, [he] was designated by the person-in-charge of

Zhongli Company to go and pick up [a certain] person at the Beijing Airport.6 He came down

from the eighth floor of the International Business Center of Huayuan Industrial Park in Nankai

District, Tianjin Municipality (hereinafter referred to as the “Business Center”), the location of

4 Translators’ note: the name “天津市中力防雷技术有限公司” is translated here as “Tianjin Zhongli

Lightning Protection Technology Co., Ltd.” in accordance with the translation used on the China Commodity Net,

http://ccn.mofcom.gov.cn/128623, which is a public information service project implemented by the Ministry of

Commerce of the People’s Republic of China. 5 Translators’ note: the “bottom-out system” (“末位淘汰制”) is a system of performance appraisal. The

relevant employees are ranked against each other and the one who is ranked at the bottom is “out”, that is, forced to

leave the company. 6 Translators’ note: the term “北京机场” (“Beijing Airport”) likely refers to “北京首都国际机场” (“Beijing

Capital International Airport”).

2015.09.15 Edition

Copyright 2015 by Stanford University

4

Zhongli Company, intending to go to the yard of the Business Center and drive away the Hongqi

sedan parked there. When [he] reached the stairs at the first-floor entrance, SUN Lixing slipped

and fell from the fourth step to the ground, causing [him] to be unable to move his arms and legs.

[He] was diagnosed by the hospital as having hyperextension injuries to the cervical spinal cord

combined with traction injuries to the cervical nerve roots, contusions and lacerations of the

upper lip, abrasions on the left arm, and skin abrasions on the left leg.

SUN Lixing put forward an application to the Park Labor Bureau for a determination that

[his] injuries were work-related. On March 5, 2004, the Park Labor Bureau rendered the (2004)

No. 0001 Decision on the Determination of Work-Related Injuries, opining that based on the

injured worker’s own application for [compensation for] work-related injuries and a medical

diagnosis certificate, in combination with relevant investigation materials and in accordance with

the standards for determining work-related injuries [as set forth] in Article 14, Item 5 of the

Regulation on Work-Related Injury Insurance, there was no evidence showing that SUN Lixing’s

slip-and-fall accident was caused by work-related reasons. [Therefore, the Park Labor Bureau]

decided not to determine that SUN Lixing’s slip-and-fall accident was a work-related accident.

Dissatisfied with the Park Labor Bureau’s Decision on the Determination of Work-Related

Injuries, SUN Lixing initiated administrative litigation at the No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court

of Tianjin Municipality.

Results of the Adjudication

On March 23, 2005, the No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court of Tianjin Municipality

rendered the (2005) Yi Zhong Xing Chu Zi No. 39 Administrative Judgment:

1. [The court] revokes the (2004) No. 0001 Decision on the Determination of Work-Related

Injuries [rendered by] the Park Labor Bureau.

2. [The court orders] the Park Labor Bureau to carry out a new specific administrative act

[of determining the nature of the injuries] within 60 days of the judgment’s coming into

effect.7

The Park Labor Bureau appealed. On July 11, 2005, the Higher People’s Court of Tianjin

Municipality rendered the (2005) Jin Gao Xing Zhong Zi No. 0034 Administrative Judgment:

[the court] rejects the appeal and upholds the original judgment.

7 Translators’ note: the original text reads “判决生效” (“the judgment comes into effect”). According to

Article 85 of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People’s Republic of China, if a party is dissatisfied with the

first-instance judgment, the party has the right to appeal to the court at the next higher level within 15 days of the

judgment’s being served. If the case is not appealed within the prescribed time limit, the judgment comes into legal

effect. See《中华人民共和国行政诉讼法》(Administrative Litigation Law of the People’s Republic of China),

passed and issued on Apr. 4, 1989, effective as of Oct. 1, 1990, amended on Nov. 1, 2014, effective as of May 1,

2015, available at http://www.spp.gov.cn/sscx/201502/t20150217_91466.shtml.

2015.09.15 Edition

Copyright 2015 by Stanford University

5

Reasons for the Adjudication

In the effective judgment, the court opined:8 None of the parties [in this case] raised

objections to [the findings that] the Park Labor Bureau had, in accordance with law, the subject

qualification and statutory authority to [conduct] administrative enforcement in this case, that

[the bureau] rendered, in compliance with statutory procedures, the challenged decision on the

determination of work-related injuries, or that SUN Lixing fell and was injured during work

hours. The focal points of the dispute in this case included: (1) was the location where SUN

Lixing fell and got injured his “workplace”?; (2) did SUN Lixing fall and suffer injuries

“because of work-related reasons”?; and (3), was SUN Lixing’s fault, [i.e.] his showing of

inadequate prudence, in the course of his work [a factor] that could affect a determination of

work-related injuries?

1. On the issue of whether the location where SUN Lixing fell and got injured was

his “workplace”

Article 14, Item 1 of the Regulation on Work-Related Injury Insurance provides that

[where] a worker is injured in an accident during work hours, at a workplace, and because of

work-related reasons, his injuries should be determined to be work-related injuries. [The term]

“workplace” as set forth in that provision refers to a place that is related to a worker’s work

responsibilities. Where there are multiple workplaces, [the term “workplace”] also includes

reasonable areas through which a worker travels when going between these multiple workplaces

during work hours.

In this case, the office of Zhongli Company located on the eighth floor of the Business

Center was the workplace of SUN Lixing. The parking location of the car that he needed to

drive in order to complete the work assignment of picking someone up at the airport was another

workplace of SUN Lixing. The car was parked outside of the first-floor entrance of the Business

Center. In order to complete his driving assignment, SUN Lixing had to go down from the

eighth floor of the Business Center to the parking location outside of the first-floor entrance.

Therefore, [the route] from the eighth floor of the Business Center to the parking location was a

reasonable area through which SUN Lixing would travel between the two workplaces and [thus,

this route] also should have been determined to be SUN Lixing’s workplace. The Park Labor

Bureau’s determination that the location where SUN Lixing fell and was injured was not his

workplace excluded the reasonable route [necessary] for [SUN Lixing] to complete his work

assignment from [the definition of the term] “workplace”. This was not in compliance with the

original legislative intent and was also in contradiction to common sense.

8 Translators’ note: the Chinese text does not specify which court opined. Given the context, this should be

the Higher People’s Court of Tianjin Municipality.

2015.09.15 Edition

Copyright 2015 by Stanford University

6

2. On the issue of whether SUN Lixing fell and suffered injuries “because of work-

related reasons”

[The phrase] “because of work-related reasons” as set forth in Article 14, Item 1 of the

Regulation on Work-Related Injury Insurance refers to [a situation where] the relationship

between a worker’s injuries and the job duties that he is engaged in is [one of] association, i.e.

there is a certain association [between] a worker’s injuries and the job duties that he is engaged

in. In order to complete the work assignment of driving a car to pick someone up, SUN Lixing

had to go from Zhongli Company’s office on the eighth floor of the Business Center down to the

first floor and then get into the driver’s seat9 [of the sedan]. These actions were closely related to

his work assignment and were objectively necessary for SUN Lixing to carry out in order to

complete the assignment. These were not unrelated personal actions that exceeded the scope of

his work responsibilities. Therefore, SUN Lixing’s fall and [subsequent] injuries on the stairs to

the first-floor entrance were caused by [the need] to complete [his] work assignment.

The Park Labor Bureau claimed that SUN Lixing fell and was injured while going down

the stairs [but] that [this] did not have a direct causal relationship with his driving task and thus

the injuries were not “because of work-related reasons” [as defined in the Regulation]. [The

bureau’s claim] lacked a factual basis. Moreover, after SUN Lixing accepted the task of driving

a car to pick someone up delegated [to him] by the leader of his own [work] unit, [he] went down

to the first floor from the eighth floor of the Business Center, where Zhongli Company was

located, and fell on his way to the parking location of the car in the [company’s] yard. At that

time, SUN Lixing had not left the yard where the company was located; [therefore], this was not

an “out on business” situation, but was [one that occurred] during work hours and within the

workplace.

3. On the issue of whether SUN Lixing’s fault, [i.e.,] his showing of inadequate

prudence, in the course of his work [was a factor] that could affect a determination of work-

related injuries.

Article 16 of the Regulation on Work-related Injury Insurance provides for three

statutory circumstances[a worker] intentionally committing a crime, being drunk or using

drugs, or self-mutilating or committing suicideunder which injuries are excluded from being

determined to be work-related. This means that [where any of these three circumstances exists],

[a worker’s] injuries must not be determined to be work-related or regarded as work-related.

[The fact that] a worker is at fault while engaged in his job duties is not [one of] the above-

mentioned statutory circumstances that excludes injuries from being determined to be work-

related and, [therefore,] cannot negate [the fact that] the relationship between the worker’s

injuries and the job duties that he is engaged in is [one of] association. In accidents [that result in]

work-related injuries, an injured worker may sometimes act with fault, including negligence,

9 Translators’ note: the Chinese text here (“汽车驾驶室”) literally translates to “automobile steering room”.

For readability, we have used “the driver’s seat”, though there are slight differences in nuance between the terms.

2015.09.15 Edition

Copyright 2015 by Stanford University

7

carelessness, and inattention. Work-related injury insurance is, [therefore], precisely the system

that [serves the] important [task] of spreading the risk of these accidents and providing labor

protection. If a worker’s personal subjective fault is treated as a condition that excludes a

determination that [his] injuries are work-related, this violates the basic principle of “no-fault

compensation” in work-related injury insurance and is not in compliance with the legislative

purpose of the Regulation on Work-related Injury Insurance of safeguarding the legal rights and

interests of workers.

Based on [the above], even if SUN Lixing was indeed being imprudent while walking in

the course of his work, this would not affect the conclusion of [any] determination that his fall

and injuries were “because of work-related reasons”. The Park Labor Bureau claimed that SUN

Lixing’s fall and injuries were not “because of work-related reasons” and thus [the injuries] were

not determined to be work-related on the grounds that SUN Lixing’s fall and injuries were not

due to slippery stairs caused by rainy or snowy weather, but due to SUN Lixing’s own

inattention. [This claim] lacked legal basis.

In conclusion, the decision rendered by the Park Labor Bureau not to determine that SUN

Lixing’s [injuries] were work-related injuries lacked a factual basis and [was based on] an

erroneous application of law. [Therefore, the decision] should be revoked in accordance with

law.