|
|
|
Zhu Yongsheng v. Shiping Company (Dispute over Compensation for Personal Injury)
|
|
朱永胜诉世平公司人身损害赔偿纠纷案
|
|
|
|
Zhu Yongsheng v. Shiping Company (Dispute over Compensation for Personal Injury)
(Dispute over Compensation for Personal Injury)
朱永胜诉世平公司人身损害赔偿纠纷案
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zhu Yongsheng v. Shiping Company (Dispute over Compensation for Personal Injury)@#
[Judgment Abstract]@#
Under Article 14 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the Application of Laws in the Trial of Cases Involving Compensation for Personal Injuries, helper relationship refers to a legal relationship between a helper and a helped party where the helper gratuitously handles affairs for the helped party. If the helper suffers personal injuries when handling the helped party's affairs, the helped party shall be held liable for compensation.@#
[Basic Facts]@#
Plaintiff: Zhu Yongsheng, male, 39, farmer, dwelling at Shuanghu Village, Jianxin Township, Dongzhi County, Anhui Province.@#
Defendant: Shiping LPG Limited Liability Company in Dongzhi County, Anhui Province, domiciled at Yaodu Town, Dongzhi County, Anhui Province.@#
Legal Representative: Zhou Shiping, manager of the Company.@#
Zhu Yongsheng (plaintiff, Zhu hereafter) brought a lawsuit with the People's Court of Dongzhi County, Anhui Province (hereinafter referred to as Dongzhi County Court) against Shiping LPG Limited Liability Company in Dongzhi County (hereinafter referred to as Shiping Company) due to a dispute over compensation for personal injury.@#
Zhu alleged that, he was a hired worker of Shiping Company. On August 5, 2003, the LPG tank at Qian Yueying's (Shiping Company's customer, Qian hereafter) home could not be lit up, and Qian asked Shiping Company's subordinate LPG station at the land bureau to send someone to repair the LPG tank. Zhu was at this LPG station at that moment, and after hearing of the matter, he said that Qian's LPG tank was tested by him. Shen Gelian, person-in-charge of the LPG station, immediately said to Zhu: “Since Qian's LPG tank was tested by you, you should go to repair it.” So Zhu went to Qian's home to repair the LPG tank, but met with a combustion accident during the repair, and was injured. He was authenticated to be at the disability of Grade 9. Since Zhu was hired by Shiping Company and was injured in his work, he pleaded the court to order Shiping Company to compensate his medical expenses, loss due to missed working time, nursing costs, traffic expenses, accommodation expenses, in-hospital food subsidy, and nutrition expenses, with the total amount at 9,717.90 yuan, and to compensate 17,250.84 yuan of his disability subsidy.@#
．．．．．． | | 朱永胜诉世平公司人身损害赔偿纠纷案@#
【裁判摘要】@#
根据最高人民法院《关于审理人身损害赔偿案件适用法律若干问题的解释》第十四条的规定，帮工关系是指帮工人无偿为被帮工人处理事务而在双方之间形成的法律关系。帮工人因帮工活动遭受人身损害的，被帮工人应当承担赔偿责任@#
【基本事实】@#
原告：朱永胜，男，39岁，农民，住安徽省东至县建新乡双湖村。@#
被告：安徽省东至县世平液化气有限责任公司，住所地：安徽省东至县尧渡镇。@#
法定代表人：周世平，该公司经理。@#
原告朱永胜因与被告东至县世平液化气有限责任公司(以下简称世平公司)发生人身损害赔偿纠纷，向安徽省东至县人民法院提起诉讼。@#
原告朱永胜诉称：原告系被告世平公司的雇工。2003年8月5日，世平公司客户钱月英家液化气打不着火，要求被告下属的土地局换气点派人前来维修。当时原告正在该换气点，听说此事后，便说该客户家的液化气罐是原告检测的。该换气点负责人沈革联当即说：“你检测的，就应该由你去。”因此原告赶往客户钱月英家维修。在维修过程中不慎发生燃烧事故，致原告受伤，经鉴定为9级伤残。原告受被告雇请在工作中受伤，请求判令被告赔偿原告的医疗费、误工费、护理费、交通费、住宿费、住院伙食补助费、营养费共计9717．90元，并赔偿原告伤残补助费17 250．84元。@#
原告朱永胜提供以下证据：@#
1．2001年7月1日核发的液化石油气换气点许可证和2002年7月24日核发的消防安全培训合格证。用以证明富邦换气点是被告世平公司设立的，原告参加了消防安全培训，系富邦换气点负责人。@#
2．2003年8月6日沈革联作出的情况说明。用以证明原告去客户钱月英家维修是受其指派的，在此次维修中发生了燃烧事故。@#
3．孙杰鑫、李茁、刘国大出具的证明二份。用以证明富邦换气点是世平公司的换气点，原告是世平公司的职工。@#
4．杨金花、周平、邓凡琴、方庆出具的情况说明三份。用以证明钱月英系被告的客户，亦在此次液化气修理过程中被烧伤。@#
5．公司设立登记审核表一份。用以证明被告有维修业务。@#
6．录像带、录音带两盘。用以证明沈革联指派原告去钱月英家维修的事实，以及土地局换气点和尧粮门市部换气点的安全责任由被告承担。@#
7．医药费收据二张及出院小结一份。用以证明原告因伤花去医药费5952．90元。@#
8．池州市中级人民法院(2004)池民一终字第81号民事判决书、(2004)池法鉴字第95号司法技术鉴定书。用以证明钱月英在维修液化气过程中受伤，被告对此承担赔偿责任。同时证明原告的伤情构成9级伤残。@#
9．东至县劳动争议仲裁委员会不予受理通知书一份。证明原告已申请仲裁，但未被仲裁机构受理。@#
被告世平公司辩称：原告朱永胜不是被告的职工，也不是被告雇员。另外，原告的医疗费未经审核，误工、赔偿标准计算不准确。@#
被告世平公司提供了如下证据：@#
1．液化石油气换气点许可证一份。用以证明富邦换气点已于2002年底停止经营。@#
2．东至县建设局证明一份。用以证明富邦换气点负责人为李茁。@#
为查明事实，东至县人民法院调取以下材料：@#
1．被告世平公司2001年4月至2003年8月份工资发放花名册一份。证明原告朱永胜的姓名不在工资花名册上。@#
2．东至县公安消防大队证明一份。证明原告于2002年6月5日以东至县富邦液化气换气点从业人员的身份报名参加培训。@#
经东至县人民法院组织质证，双方当事人对原告朱永胜提供的证据5、7、8、9及法院调取的证据2无异议，法院予以确认。对原告提供的证据1，被告世平公司有异议，认为富邦换气点的许可证是2001年核发的，因2002年未参加年审，当年底该换气点便已停业，且该换气点与被告订立的合同年限是一年，早已过期。对于原告于 2002年以富邦换气点从业人员的名义报名参加培训一事，被告并不知晓。法院认为，鉴于双方当事人对法院调取的证据2无异议，故可以认定2002年6月6日朱永胜以世平公司富邦换气点从业人员的身份参加了池州市消防支队在东至县举办的从业人员培训班。富邦换气点因未参加年检、变更负责人亦未向主管部门申请批准等原因，于2002年底停止经营。对原告提供的证据2、6，被告有异议，认为沈革联无权指派、事实上也从未指派原告去钱月英家维修，沈革联当时仅仅是接原告的话随口说“是你检测的你就去”。法院认为，被告下属的土地局换气点设有维修业务，接到客户提出的维修请求后是否派人前去维修，作为该换气点的负责人，沈革联有权作出决定。原告在该换气点得知钱月英家液化气打不着火需要维修这一事实后，便称钱月英家的液化气瓶是他检测的。当时无其他维修人员在场，沈革联随即说“是你检测的你就去看看”。对于上述事实双方并无异议，因此对原告提供的这两份证据予以确认。对原告提供的证据4，被告有异议，认为钱月英是原告个人的客户，并非被告的客户。法院认为，被告没有提供证据证明钱月英是原告个人的客户，同时该证据是几位证人出具的证明，且与其他证据互相印证，故予以采信。对原告提供的证据3，被告有异议，认为该证据证明力不足，不能充分证明原告是被告的职工。法院认为，该证人证言不能充分证明原告是被告职工，原告也没有提供其他证据予以佐证。被告异议成立，对该证据不予采信。对法院调取的证据1，原告有异议，认为被告有可能对工资表作了变动处理。法院认为，该证据系法院依法取得，原告未能提供相反的证据来推翻该证据，故原告异议不成立。@#
．．．．．． |
|
Dear visitor, as a premium member of this database, you will get complete access to all content.Please go premium and get more.
1. To become a premium member, please call 400-810-8266 Ext. 171.
2. Binding to the account with access to this database.
3. Apply for a trial account.
4. To get instant access to a document, you can Pay Amount 【￥500.00】 for your single purchase. | |
您好：您现在要进入的是北大法宝英文库会员专区。
如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录，进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息；如您还不是我们 的英文用户；您可通过网上支付进行单篇购买，支付成功后即可立即查看本篇内容。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:info@chinalawinfo.com
|
| | | | | | | | |
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
|
|
|
|
|
|
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content
found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright
owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.
Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations
of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language
versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly
or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.
We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve
the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
|
|
|
|
|
|