Does death from overwork belong to a work-related injury?
Lau works as a packaging worker at a company in Dongguan. On October 13, 2017 at 21:22, Lau got off work. On the next day at 8:00, Lau’s wife contacted Lau’s supervisor to ask for a sick leave on his behalf. Lau went to the hospital for medical treatment. At 11:30, Lau was lack of consciousness, and died due to “sudden death” after being sent to the hospital for rescue. Lau’s wife applied for the work-related injury recognition. The local human resources and social security bureau reviewed relevant information, and decided Lau’s death should not be recognized as a work-related injury. Afterwards, Lau’s wife sued the company on the grounds of a dispute over the right to life. Both the first and second instance courts ruled against Lau’s wife. (see (2020) Yue 19 Min Zhong No.8318)
Zhu works as a porter at a company in Jiangsu. On August 1, 2019 at 20:03, Zhu fell on his way home from work and was found dead at 4:56. Similar to Lau’s case, Zhu’s wife also sued the company on the grounds of a right to life after the local human resources and social security bureau decided that Zhu’s death should not be recognized as a work-related injury. In the first instance, the court ruled against Zhu’s wife, but in the second instance, the court ruled that the company should bear 30% of the infringement liability. (see (2022) Su 06 Min Zhong No.1678)
Both the above two cases are related to the “death from overwork”, why did the courts rule differently?
Firstly, there is no provision in China’s current laws and regulations regarding “death from overwork”. In the past many years, some representatives of the National People’s Congress and the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference have proposed to incorporate “death from overwork” into legal regulations. The responses of the Ministry of Social Security are the same, that is, the current legislation system is appropriate. There are three reasons: (1) Article 15 of the “Regulations on Work-related Injury Insurance” stipulates that a worker died suddenly during working hours and while on the job due to sudden illness or died within 48 hours after futile rescue attempts, shall be deemed as a work-related injury. This provision has actually expanded the coverage of work injury insurance and to some extent protected the rights and interests of “death from overwork” personnels; (2) From the perspectives of medical technology and legal investigation, it is difficult to determine “death from overwork”; and (3) The “Labor Law”, the “Regulations on Paid Annual Leave for Employees”, the “Work Safety Law” and relevant other laws and regulations have stipulated that enterprises should protect the rest and vacation rights of employees, and there is no need to regulate from multiple perspectives. Therefore, there is no legal basis for making claims on the grounds of “death from overwork”.
Secondly, the “Regulations on Work-related Injury Insurance” has clearly listed three circumstances that could be deemed as a work injury, which means all the corresponding requirements shall be met. The two cases in the beginning demonstrate this opinion.
Thirdly, in the absence of being recognized as a work-related injury, only when the company has engaged in infringement behaviors, the employee’s family members could claim liability for infringement. There are four constituent elements of tort liability, namely the act of infringement, the fact of damage, subjective fault, and causal relationship. The fact of injury in “death from overwork” refers to the employee’s death, while the other three elements can be summarized in one sentence, which is the death caused by the company’s arrangement of the employee to work excessively. Regarding relevant evidence, as in the second case, Zhu’s wife proved that the company required Zhu to work 31 consecutive days a month and work overtime every day, which seriously exceeded the legal working hours. The judge believed that such working hours were not only illegal but also beyond the limits that a general body could bear, and thus ordered the company to bear certain liabilities. However, even so, the judge only ordered the company to bear 30% of liabilities, because the judge pointed out that the employee is the first person responsible for his/her own physical condition.
In summary, from the perspective of HR management, in order to reduce the probability of “deemed work-related injuries”, and the risk of infringement liabilities, it is recommended to pay attention to the frequency and duration of overtime arrangements.