Who is responsible for the takeaway rider's injury?
Reading tips
Traffic accidents caused by takeaway riders are not uncommon due to rushing time to deliver food, and who is responsible for such cases has become a hot topic.
A few days ago, an injured person took the food delivery rider, the service outsourcing company, and the food order platform operator to court.
Both the first and second instance judgments indicated that the service outsourcing company should bear the liability for compensation.
In order to deliver a few more takeaways, some takeaway riders did not hesitate to speed or even run red lights, which caused many traffic accidents.
So, who is liable for compensation after the takeaway rider hits another person?
After negotiating to solve the problem privately, a woman who was injured in Beijing took the food delivery rider, the service outsourcing company, and the food ordering platform operator to court.
Recently, the Beijing No. 2 Intermediate People's Court pointed out when hearing this case that Xue's service outsourcing company should be liable for compensation because Xue was performing his duties at the time of the incident.
Delivering food at night, hurting others and triggering a lawsuit
On the evening of June 6, 2019, when Xue was delivering food on an electric bicycle in Dongcheng District, Beijing, he had a traffic accident with Ma, who was riding an electric bicycle, causing contact with and damage to the left side of Ma’s vehicle. Ma was also injured.
The traffic control department determined that Xue was fully responsible for the accident and Ma was not responsible.
At that time, Ma felt that the injury was not very serious, so he negotiated with Xue to resolve it privately, but Xue refused, so she chose to report to the police.
Ma later went to the hospital and was diagnosed with pain, rotator cuff injury, soft tissue contusion, and supraspinatus tendon injury.
According to Article 34 of the Tort Liability Law of the People's Republic of China, if the staff of the employer causes damage to others due to the performance of their work tasks, the employer shall bear the tort liability.
Since then, Ma sued Xue, Shanghai Peiren Enterprise Service Outsourcing Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Shanghai Peiren Company), and Shanghai Lazars Information Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Lazars Company) to Beijing Dongcheng District People’s Court. The three defendants are required to pay 1,122.35 yuan for medical expenses (inspection fees, medicine fees, registration fees), 77 yuan for transportation, 31,500 yuan for lost work, 2,000 yuan for nutrition, 5,000 yuan for mental damage, and 480 yuan for vehicle parts and repairs. A total of 41079.35 yuan.
Who is responsible for the three parties? Debate in court
During the trial, Lazars Company argued that Xue did not have any labor, labor or employment relationship with him, and Lazars was not his employer, nor was he a qualified defendant in the case; it was verified that Xue had traffic during the delivery process. In the accident, the employer, Shanghai Peiren Company, should bear the corresponding tort liability; Lazars Company operates the "Ele.me" APP takeaway ordering platform and provides online platform services. There is no causal relationship between the victim's infringement and the result. Should not be liable for compensation; Lazars is not a party to the accident in this case, the vehicle involved is not owned by Lazars, and Xue is not an employee of Lazars. Therefore, Lazars has no fault and has no legal obligation to bear responsibility for the traffic accident.
Shanghai Peiren Company argued that the relationship between it and Xue was only an intermediary service relationship established by the Hummingbird crowdsourcing app, and by calling the back-end order record of the rider Xue, it was found that Xue was already at 22:00 on the same day. After completing the order, there will be no order receipt and delivery records.
The traffic accident identification book shows that the accident occurred at 22:25, so Xue’s behavior at the time of the accident was not an official act, and he should not be liable for compensation; Xue has insured rider accident insurance, and the insurance product includes three The plaintiff should apply to the insurance company for compensation through Xue.
In this regard, the Beijing Dongcheng District Court held that the focus of the dispute in this case was whether Xue was performing his duties at the time of the accident.
Upon inquiry by the court, Xue said that after the accident, he negotiated with Ma, and Ma called the police only after the negotiation failed. Therefore, the time of police dispatch was later than the time of the accident.
Ma acknowledged this, saying that the time of the accident was around 21:45. He wanted to solve it privately, but Xue did not agree, so he called the police. The time in the traffic accident certificate is the time for the police.
In addition, the court found that according to the relevant content of the "Online Employment Agreement" provided by Shanghai Peiren Company, as a platform operator, it shall pay the online employment remuneration and withhold and pay corresponding taxes and fees to the online employment agency and be responsible for it. Deal with all employment issues that occurred during the online hire service.
According to the "Service Outsourcing Cooperation Agreement" provided by Lazars, as a service platform for providing information, Lazars only provides information on demand for distribution services.
Considering that Shanghai Peiren Company participated in the rider’s delivery activities, it played an important role in the management, salary, benefits, insurance and other aspects of the delivery rider. When the story happened, Xue should be performing the duties of Shanghai Peiren Company. The defendant Lazars Company shall not be liable for compensation, and Shanghai Peiren Company shall compensate Ma for his reasonable and legal losses.
On August 28 this year, the People’s Court of Dongcheng District, Beijing issued a judgment of first instance, requiring Shanghai Peiren Company to compensate the plaintiff Ma’s medical expenses of RMB 1122.35, transportation expenses of RMB 77, and lost work expenses of RMB 14,000 within ten days from the effective date of this judgment. The vehicle repair cost is 480 yuan.
Shanghai Peiren Company refused to accept the judgment of the first instance and appealed to the Second Intermediate Court of Beijing.
Recently, the Beijing Second Intermediate People's Court made a final judgment, rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
Yang Zhaokui