公司员工喝醉酒被撞身亡,该不该认定工伤?济南市历下区法院对一起"工伤认定纠纷案"作出判决!

时间:2019-07-16 来源:www.thebigbobs.com

188金博网app

RViXkO9OiyalH

Release: Jinan Intermediate People's News Center

Source: Shandong Business Daily

15319348158280048cb7f8c

Si Xiaoqiang's work place is located in a construction site project department of a road and bridge company in Jinan, and lives in the dormitory of the construction project department. One day, after being busy with work and self-inspection, Si Xiaoqiang had already passed the dining room of the project department, and then went to the restaurant near the construction site with several colleagues to eat. After returning to work, he met a heavy-duty heavy-duty heavy half. Hanging the tractor, Si Xiaoqiang was killed and the vehicle was damaged. Later, the unit of Jin Xiaojun, the unit of Si Xiaoqiang, submitted the application for the identification of the work injury of Si Xiaoqiang to the Jinan Municipal Human Resources and Social Security Bureau. It is expected that the work injury identification is not so smooth.

Car accident: five days before the birth of the son

At about 21 o'clock on December 3, 2016, Si Xiaoqiang and several colleagues from the project department had finished their work, and went to the restaurant near the construction site to eat. After dinner, they were ready to return to the project department to continue to observe the construction of the pipe gallery. That night, Yang speedingly drove an overloaded heavy-duty semi-trailer tractor from east to west along Provincial Highway 102. After a drink, he returned to the project department's pedestrian Si Xiaoqiang for a road traffic accident, causing Si Xiaoqiang to die and the vehicle to be damaged. This tragedy happened to happen unfortunately in the first five days of the birth of Si Xiaoqiang’s son. Later, the road traffic management department of the Jinan Municipal Public Security Bureau determined that Yang’s speeding in driving the overloaded vehicle did not ensure the safety of driving, which was the cause of the accident. Si Xiaoqiang had no fault. According to the relevant regulations, it is determined that Yang assumes full responsibility for the accident, and Si Xiaoqiang does not assume responsibility for the accident. A few days later, the traffic police detachment of the Jinan Municipal Public Security Bureau made《检验鉴定报告》. The inspection opinion showed that no ethanol was detected in the venous blood of Yang, and the ethanol content was detected in the blood of Si Xiaoqiang, the content was 204mg/100ml.

xxIn the month of the incident, the unit where Si Xiaoqiang was located submitted the application for the identification of the work injury of Si Xiaoqiang to the Jinan Municipal Bureau of Human Resources and Social Security. Within the statutory time limit, the Human Resources and Social Security Bureau made《不予认定工伤决定书》. The Traffic Police Detachment of the Jinan Municipal Public Security Bureau issued《道路交通事故认定书》and alcohol《检验鉴定报告》. After drinking a traffic accident, Mr. Xiaoqiang was drinking alcohol, and the alcohol content in the blood was 204mg/100ml, which has reached the drunk standard. According to [6x9A8B] Article 16, paragraph 1 (2) and《工伤保险条例》Article 37, paragraph 2, "drunken or drug-using" shall not be recognized as a work-related injury. According to the city's Human Resources and Social Security Bureau, the death of Si Xiaoqiang is not recognized or treated as a work-related injury. Si Xiaoqiang’s close relatives refused to accept the case and appealed to the People’s Court of Lixia District of Jinan City.

RVoMEUs7Fs2loe

Drunk can not be identified as a work injury?

The plaintiff stated in the complaint that when the accident occurred, Si Xiaoqiang worked in the project department and lived in the project department dormitory. Si Xiaoqiang returned to the project department after eating, and belonged to the way to and from work. He believed that it should be recognized as a work-related injury. The defendant Jinan Municipal Bureau of Social and Social Affairs believed that the employee division Xiaoqiang was an accident that occurred on the way back to the project department after going out to eat, and had alcohol consumption during the meal and reached the standard of “drunk”. Considering the "purpose" and "work relevance" of work-related injuries, the situation of employees does not have the "reasonability of purpose" for commuting. The occurrence of accidents has nothing to do with the cause of work. Therefore, it is determined that the injury suffered by Secretary Xiaoqiang is not a work-related injury.

xx济南市历下区人民法院认为,案件争议的焦点是被告人民社会保障局《社会保险法》的事实证据是否充分,适用法律是否正确。被告市人民社会保障局的基础是“小强书记及其同事在交通事故发生后前往外面吃喝喝醉,无论是在工作时间还是在工作场所,都受到伤害因工作造成的事故。它不在去往工作的路上。交通事故伤害的主要责任不在于《不予认定工伤决定书》第14和15条确定了与工作有关的伤害或工伤的情况,因此《工伤保险条例》已经完成。那么,醉酒是否是决定工伤的阻力的条件?

必须维护员工的合法权益

一审主审法官刘文表示,济南市中级人民法院出具的相关行政判决已经具有法律效力。该判决认为,《不予认定工伤决定书》和中国《工伤保险条例》在关于醉酒的规定中没有完全规定,也没有确定工伤。是一致的。从案文的含义可以看出,前者规定醉酒与员工伤亡之间不存在因果关系,不能将其视为工伤;而后者的表述“造成工作中的伤亡”强调了醉酒与伤亡之间的关系。因果关系。解释和理解这两个规定的不一致也是本案纠纷的根本原因,有必要解决法律规范适用的问题。中国《社会保险法》规定“法律比行政法规,地方法律法规更有效”。根据这项规定,中国《立法法》比《社会保险法》更有效,当两个规则不一致时,前者应该是裁判的基础。

回到这种情况,如果醉酒不是导致员工伤亡的原因,那么醉酒不应成为识别工伤的条件。司小强在交通事故发生时处于醉酒状态,但《工伤保险条例》承认司小强不对此次事故负责,这表明事故并非由司小强博士的酗酒引起。司小强没有参与交通事故,司小强去世了。存在因果关系,并且不允许以醉酒为由识别司小强的工伤。

此外,工伤的识别需要综合考虑工作原因,工作场所和工作时间等因素。在这种情况下,根据济南路桥公司第三人发布的《交通事故认定书》的内容和相关证人的证词和调查记录,司小强在建筑工地项目部工作并担任地质检查员,他的工作性质决定了他的通勤时间。不能严格按照公司规定执行。由于工作原因,司小强错过了项目部的晚餐时间。他和他的同事应该出去吃饭,以便从事日常工作和生活所需的活动,并有合理的出去目的。如果只是因为外出吃饭而且是防止该人识别工伤的原因,那么显然与《职工工伤事故调查报告》的目的不一致。

在这种情况下,司小强因工作原因进驻施工现场项目部,因外出吃饭而死于交通事故。在确定是否是工伤时,应考虑工作性质,工作时间,事故是否合理,以及通勤中途的合理路线。被告市社会和社会事务局没有确定和分析上述因素,只是作出了拒绝识别工伤或工伤的决定是适用法律法规的错误。

综上所述,根据中国《工伤保险条例》的有关规定,济南市立夏法院决定撤销济南市人力资源和社会保障局针对司小强提出的《行政诉讼法》,并在30日内重新制作了关于斯小强的内容。自判决生效之日起的几天。工伤识别的具体行政行为。在本案作出一审判决后,被告人济南市人力资源和社会保障局提起上诉。济南市中级人民法院依法驳回上诉,维持原判。 (文中的一方是化名)

文:王继学

RViXkLKEYfI9Zf