News from our newspaper (Reporter Zou Jiran) The takeaway boy hurts a passerby while delivering the meal. Does the delivery platform need to be liable for compensation?
The People's Court of Wuxing District, Huzhou City, Zhejiang Province tried such a compensation dispute.
Recently, the Wuxing District Court ruled that the takeaway brother and the delivery platform company bear joint and several liability for compensation.
One day in December last year, after receiving an order from a delivery company, Xiao Wang, the takeaway boy, hurried out to deliver the goods as usual, and soon ran into Lao Yang, a pedestrian crossing the road.
The traffic police determined that Xiao Wang drove the electric car too fast, and did not pay attention to the road surface to ensure safety, and was mainly responsible for the accident; Lao Yang crossed the road in violation of the regulations and took the secondary responsibility.
After Lao Yang was injured and sent to the doctor, he spent more than 40,000 yuan in medical expenses, and was identified as a Grade 8 disability.
Due to the issue of compensation, Lao Yang sued Xiaowang, a distribution platform company, and an insurance company to the court, claiming more than 160,000 yuan.
Xiao Wang said: "I do have a certain responsibility for driving too fast, but I also want to hurry up and deliver the food to the customers. Shouldn't this be the responsibility of the company?"
The distribution platform believes that although the traffic accident occurred during the delivery of the food, the main reason for the accident was that Xiao Wang drove too fast and Lao Yang crossed the road. "It has nothing to do with our company, and we have never had much to do with Xiao Wang signs labor contracts and employment contracts."
It is understood that Xiao Wang has been registered as a takeaway courier of a certain distribution platform, and the platform will pay the corresponding remuneration after completing the distribution task.
On the day of registration, the distribution platform company purchased personal liability insurance for Xiao Wang from an insurance company, with a limit of 100,000 yuan for third-party personal injury insurance.
In the end, the court ruled that an insurance company should pay Lao Yang more than 70,000 yuan, and the distribution platform and Xiao Wang should compensate Lao Yang more than 20,000 yuan in addition to the insurance compensation.
The court held that the insurance that the distribution platform had insured for Xiao Wang clearly stated that the insured distributor caused personal injury or death or direct loss of property to a third party due to negligence during the distribution process, and the compensation ratio for each accident was 80%.
The distribution platform and Xiaowang constitute an employment relationship. After the liability insurance is paid, the shortfall shall be compensated by the distribution platform.
However, because Xiao Wang was primarily responsible for the accident, it can be determined that he was grossly negligent, so he should bear joint and several liability for compensation with the distribution platform company.
"In practice, due to the different employment patterns between the takeaway rider and the delivery platform, the ways in which all parties need to assume responsibility are also different." The judge reminded that the takeaway rider should follow the traffic rules and drive carefully when riding and delivering meals. The employment should be standardized, and the management training and safety knowledge education for riders should be strengthened.