Hu Lao Si worked as a security guard at a food company in Dongguan. In July 28, 2015, Hu Lao Si was in the middle class. The working hours in the middle class were from 15 to 23. At about 22:25 that night, Hu Lao IV left the company without the companys consent, and had a collision with a minibus on the road, causing multiple injuries to his body. According to the traffic police department, Hu Lao Si has a secondary responsibility in the traffic accident. On the 1 th of August 2015, the hospital died, and the cause of death was multiple organ failure. In August 19, 2015, three family members, Ma Chunhua and others, submitted the application for industrial injury identification to the Dongguan Social Security Bureau. In October 16, 2015, the Dongguan social security bureau made the no identification of the work injury decision, and found that Hu Lao IVs normal work time in July 28, 2015 was 23, and Hu Lao IV did not agree to ride a bicycle at about 22:25 in the evening. That is, the death caused by Hu Lao IV in this accident does not conform to the situation of traffic accidents on the way to and from work, or urban rail traffic, passenger ferry, train accidents. Therefore, the Dongguan social security bureau made a decision not to be identified or deemed to be work-related injury. Ma Chunhua and other three people refused to accept the decision on the work-related injury and proposed administrative proceedings to the court of first instance. Judgment of first instance: unauthorized departure from a post, injury caused by traffic accidents does not conform to the conditions for determining industrial injury. The first instance court held that three people, such as Ma Chunhua, in the case, argued that Hu Lao IV left the company at about 22:25 in July 28, 2015, and that the traffic accidents that occurred were in line with the traffic accidents on the way to work, the urban rail traffic, the passenger ferry, the train accident injury. The injury should be identified as the situation of the industrial injury. According to the witness testimony of Peng, Wu Wengui and the inquiry written record by the Dongguan Social Security Bureau to Peng, Wu Mougui and Ma Chunhua, and combining the companys guard security management system, we know that the working time of the company is that the morning shift is from 7 to 15, the middle class is from 15 to 23, and the evening shift is from 23 to the next day the next day. In July 28, 2015, Hu Lao 4 was the middle class on the day of the company. The normal office time was 23, and he was found to ride a bicycle on the road near the company at about 22:25 that night and had a traffic accident. There was no evidence to prove that it had the consent of the unit or a normal handover class with his colleagues. Before and after work, Hu Lao IV belongs to the injury caused by the traffic accident without permission, which does not conform to the condition that the work injury or the work injury should be considered on the way of the work. Accordingly, the decision made by the Dongguan social security bureau is not inappropriate. Ma Chunhua and other three people have insufficient grounds for litigation claim and should be dismissed according to law. Family appeal: Hu Lao Si had a very clear intention and purpose of going to work at the time. It was the following class for the purpose and should be identified as work-related injuries. The family members believe that the sixth articles on the implementation of the regulations on industrial injury insurance (two) stipulate that: the reasonable route between workers and workers from work for the purpose and between the work unit and the place of residence in a reasonable time is considered to be on the way to work. In accordance with the specific circumstances of this case, the intention and purpose of the case of Hu Lao IV at that time is very obvious. It is the purpose of the following class. The situation is in line with the above sixth provisions, the reasonable road between the workers and the workers and between the work unit and the place of residence in a reasonable time, which is considered to be on the way to work. Therefore, in combination with the above facts, Hu Lao IVs death is in line with on the way to and from work, by traffic accidents or urban rail traffic, passenger ferry, train accidents. Regulations. Social Security Bureau: a traffic accident after leaving the post without authorization is not consistent with the condition of industrial injury. The Social Security Bureau replied that Hu Lao Si had an accident at 22:25 on July 28, 2015. It was a traffic accident after leaving the post unlawfully, and it did not conform to the industrial injury identification. According to Hu Lao 4s attendance record combining enquiry record, Hu Lao IV is a company security staff, the security class is divided into three classes, the morning shift is from 7 to 15, the middle class is 15 to 23, the evening shift is from 23 to the next day, and the middle class of Hu Lao 4 is in July 28, 2015, the start time is 15 to 23, and that day Hu Lao 4 should work at 23 hours. . However, at 22:45 the road in the vicinity of the company in the neighborhood of a traffic accident, the distance from the normal work time about 40 minutes, he left the job no one knows, no units agreed, and did not do a good shift to the top class colleagues. The second trial verdict: the damage to the interests of the unit is unequal to the units interests, and if it is regarded as a normal work, and the unit assumes the risk brought by the harmful act, it is not fair to the unit. The trial of the Dongguan middle court believes that the focus of the second trial dispute is whether the accident injury involved in the case of Hu Lao 4 constitutes a work injury. The key lies in whether it is in conformity with one of the following cases, which should be identified as a work injury:... (six) on the way to commute, traffic accidents or urban rail transit, passenger ferry and train accidents are injured. Regulations. The sixth provisions of the Supreme Peoples Court on several administrative cases of industrial injury insurance stipulates: the peoples court shall support the peoples court for the following cases that the administrative department of social insurance has identified the following cases: (1) returning from work to the place of residence, habitual residence, and dormitory in a reasonable time. A reasonable route to work on the way;... So it can be seen that on the way to work, in addition to the reasonable distance between workers and workers at home and abroad, it is necessary to make a comprehensive judgment on the reasonable time factors of work. Only the traffic accident on the way to work may be identified as a work injury. If the workers leave the job without authorization to the interests of the unit, if they are regarded as normal work, and let the unit undertake the risk caused by the harmful behavior, it is clear that the unit is not fair. As a result, the workers work is normal to work or go to work by the unit, and the time of work and work is closely connected with the working time, which is in line with the time requirements on the way to work. In this case, the companys security work time is divided into 7 hours to 15 hours, 15 to 23 in the middle class, from 23 to 7 on the next day, so long as someone takes over, as long as Mr. Hu, a security guard, is in the middle class in the sky, and the class will be on the night shift, while Wu Mougui is allowed to come at 22:55 on the evening. When I went to work in the security room, I did not see Hu Lao Si himself. Through the road traffic accident identification book, it can be seen that the case involving road traffic accidents is 22:25, at this time Wu Mougui from the succession to the security room has half an hour, no way to talk about the completion of the transfer class. Therefore, when there is no evidence to prove that Hu Lao 4 and his colleagues have completed the normal transfer class or have obtained the consent of the company, Hu Lao IV is supposed to leave work without authorization. This behavior does not belong to the normal working category of the staff and workers and does not meet the time requirements on the way to work. So the Social Security Bureau will be involved in the case. No accident injury is not identified as a work injury. In summary, three people, such as Ma Chunhua, have not objected to the decision to determine the work injury, but failed to submit sufficient evidence to prove that the appeal request could not be set up, and the hospital was rejected. The high court ruled that it was more than half an hour prior to leaving the post without permission, and had exceeded normal and reasonable off duty time. After the examination, the Guangdong High Court held that the applicant did not submit new evidence to the hospital. The main reason for the retrial was the fact that the court of original trial found that Hu Lao IV was unauthorized to leave work before leaving work and that it should be regarded as a work injury even in advance. In this regard, Hu Lao 4 is a security office in the company. The door security time required by the company is 7 hours to 15 hours, 15 hours to 23 hours in the middle class, 23 hours in the evening shift to 7 oclock the next day. Hu Lao IV was in the middle class on the day of the crime. The time of work was 23 hours on the day, and the time of the traffic accident was 22:25 on the day, so Hu Lao 4 was at least 35 minutes in advance. The fact that the social security bureau is able to confirm the enquiry record made by the company security guard Wu Mougui, Peng Mouping and the application for man Ma Chunhua at the stage of industrial injury identification, can also confirm the agreement on eight hours a day in the labor contract signed by Hu Lao 4 and the company, and the companys guard security management system and the companys security management system. Employee manual and so on. The court of original trial, in the case of the retrial applicant failed to provide the contrary evidence to confirm that Hu Lao IV was approved by the company before the company had been approved by the company, or had completed a normal handover class with his colleagues. As a security guard, Hu Lao Si left the post more than half an hour in advance, which has exceeded normal and reasonable off duty time. The social security bureau does not identify work-related injuries. The courts of first instance and second instance do not support the claims of retrial applicants. The Supreme Court of Guangdong ruled in December 21, 2017 to reject the application for retrial. Case number: (2016) Guangdong Xing Shen 1339, warm reminder: early retirement is risky, please be punctual after work! Source of this article: editor in charge of law popularization in China: Fan Jiang _NN9138 The court of original trial, in the case of the retrial applicant failed to provide the contrary evidence to confirm that Hu Lao IV was approved by the company before the company had been approved by the company, or had completed a normal handover class with his colleagues. As a security guard, Hu Lao Si left the post more than half an hour in advance, which has exceeded normal and reasonable off duty time. The social security bureau does not identify work-related injuries. The courts of first instance and second instance do not support the claims of retrial applicants. The Supreme Court of Guangdong ruled in December 21, 2017 to reject the application for retrial. Case number: (2016) No. 1339 of Guangdong Province Warm reminder: early retirement is risky, please be punctual after work!