cciia.org.cn 2024-6-19 16:30:42 人民法(fa)院(yuan)報(bao)
公司員工上(shang)班時與同事為爭(zheng)搶(qiang)工作(zuo)臺(tai)產生口角，進而被毆打受傷，此種情形能否認定為因“履(lv)行工作(zuo)職責”受傷？近日，安徽省蕪湖市中(zhong)級人(ren)民(min)法院二審判(pan)決(jue)一起工傷行政確認案件(jian)，維(wei)持了(le)蕪湖經濟(ji)技(ji)術開(kai)發(fa)區人(ren)民(min)法院一審判(pan)決(jue)：撤銷被告某區人(ren)社(she)局(ju)作(zuo)出(chu)的《不予認定工傷決(jue)定書》，責令人(ren)社(she)局(ju)于(yu)判(pan)決(jue)生效之(zhi)日起60日內重新作(zuo)出(chu)行政行為。
原告王(wang)某(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)是蕪湖(hu)某(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)電器公(gong)(gong)司員工(gong)。2021年1月(yue)(yue)7日，在(zai)公(gong)(gong)司車間(jian)內，王(wang)某(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)與同事李某(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)因爭搶(qiang)工(gong)作(zuo)臺發(fa)生爭執，進而(er)互相廝打，之后(hou)(hou)雙方(fang)自行分開(kai)。約(yue)20分鐘后(hou)(hou)，李某(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)趁王(wang)某(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)埋頭工(gong)作(zuo)時，手(shou)(shou)持鐵(tie)扳(ban)手(shou)(shou)對王(wang)某(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)進行毆(ou)打，致(zhi)王(wang)某(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)全身(shen)多處損傷。后(hou)(hou)王(wang)某(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)向蕪湖(hu)某(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)區人社局提起工(gong)傷認定申請。其間(jian)，公(gong)(gong)安機關出具情(qing)況說明，載明王(wang)某(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)所(suo)受傷害(hai)經鑒定為輕傷一(yi)級，已立刑(xing)事案件調查處理(li)，后(hou)(hou)法院判決(jue)李某(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)犯故(gu)意傷害(hai)罪，判處有期徒(tu)刑(xing)一(yi)年三個月(yue)(yue)。2023年2月(yue)(yue)6日，某(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)人社局作(zuo)出《不予認定工(gong)傷決(jue)定書(shu)》。王(wang)某(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)不服，向法院提起訴訟。
蕪湖經開區法(fa)院(yuan)經審(shen)理認(ren)(ren)為，根據(ju)相關規定(ding)(ding)，職工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)在工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)作(zuo)(zuo)時(shi)間和工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)作(zuo)(zuo)場所內，因(yin)(yin)(yin)(yin)履行(xing)工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)作(zuo)(zuo)職責(ze)受到暴力等意外(wai)傷害(hai)的(de)(de)，應(ying)認(ren)(ren)定(ding)(ding)為工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)傷。該案(an)中，區人(ren)(ren)社局認(ren)(ren)定(ding)(ding)王某(mou)(mou)(mou)非因(yin)(yin)(yin)(yin)履行(xing)工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)作(zuo)(zuo)職責(ze)所受意外(wai)傷害(hai)的(de)(de)主要證據(ju)并不(bu)充分(fen)。首先，雙方(fang)系因(yin)(yin)(yin)(yin)工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)作(zuo)(zuo)瑣事發(fa)生爭執(zhi)，在案(an)證據(ju)均反映王某(mou)(mou)(mou)與李(li)(li)某(mou)(mou)(mou)在案(an)發(fa)前并無個人(ren)(ren)恩怨(yuan)。其次，王某(mou)(mou)(mou)受傷與工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)作(zuo)(zuo)原(yuan)因(yin)(yin)(yin)(yin)之間具(ju)有(you)因(yin)(yin)(yin)(yin)果(guo)聯系。王某(mou)(mou)(mou)與李(li)(li)某(mou)(mou)(mou)之間的(de)(de)爭執(zhi)系因(yin)(yin)(yin)(yin)工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)作(zuo)(zuo)原(yuan)因(yin)(yin)(yin)(yin)引(yin)起，王某(mou)(mou)(mou)在第一(yi)次爭執(zhi)結束后(hou)(hou)推(tui)走工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)作(zuo)(zuo)臺(tai)回到工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)位(wei)后(hou)(hou)繼續工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)作(zuo)(zuo)，并無與李(li)(li)某(mou)(mou)(mou)再行(xing)爭執(zhi)的(de)(de)意圖或表現，也正是在其繼續工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)作(zuo)(zuo)無防(fang)備之際，被李(li)(li)某(mou)(mou)(mou)實施毆打致傷。因(yin)(yin)(yin)(yin)此，王某(mou)(mou)(mou)所受傷害(hai)與工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)作(zuo)(zuo)原(yuan)因(yin)(yin)(yin)(yin)之間具(ju)有(you)因(yin)(yin)(yin)(yin)果(guo)聯系。最后(hou)(hou)，二人(ren)(ren)因(yin)(yin)(yin)(yin)工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)作(zuo)(zuo)糾(jiu)紛發(fa)生爭執(zhi)后(hou)(hou)，王某(mou)(mou)(mou)處(chu)理工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)作(zuo)(zuo)矛(mao)盾的(de)(de)方(fang)式(shi)方(fang)法(fa)盡管欠妥，但其所受傷害(hai)非因(yin)(yin)(yin)(yin)故(gu)意或嚴重過(guo)失所致，故(gu)并不(bu)足以阻卻對履行(xing)工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)作(zuo)(zuo)職責(ze)的(de)(de)認(ren)(ren)定(ding)(ding)。綜上(shang)，被告某(mou)(mou)(mou)區人(ren)(ren)社局認(ren)(ren)定(ding)(ding)涉案(an)暴力傷害(hai)不(bu)屬于履行(xing)工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)作(zuo)(zuo)職責(ze)所受意外(wai)傷害(hai)的(de)(de)主要證據(ju)不(bu)足，法(fa)院(yuan)依法(fa)作(zuo)(zuo)出(chu)前述(shu)判決。
案件宣判后，某(mou)區人社局(ju)不服(fu)，提起上訴。
蕪(wu)湖中院審理后認(ren)為(wei)(wei)，王(wang)某(mou)(mou)(mou)所(suo)受傷(shang)害源(yuan)起于雙方因(yin)(yin)搶工(gong)(gong)作(zuo)臺發(fa)生的(de)(de)第一次爭執，在時(shi)間(jian)上(shang)亦具(ju)有較為(wei)(wei)明顯的(de)(de)連貫性，且均發(fa)生在工(gong)(gong)作(zuo)時(shi)間(jian)、工(gong)(gong)作(zuo)場所(suo)之(zhi)(zhi)內，不(bu)應分割評判。王(wang)某(mou)(mou)(mou)受到(dao)傷(shang)害的(de)(de)直(zhi)接(jie)原(yuan)因(yin)(yin)雖來自李某(mou)(mou)(mou)的(de)(de)故意(yi)傷(shang)害行(xing)為(wei)(wei)，但已(yi)生效的(de)(de)刑事(shi)判決(jue)書，公安(an)機關對李某(mou)(mou)(mou)、王(wang)某(mou)(mou)(mou)分別所(suo)作(zuo)的(de)(de)訊問筆錄、詢問筆錄以及人社(she)局的(de)(de)詢問筆錄，均不(bu)能(neng)證明李某(mou)(mou)(mou)與(yu)(yu)王(wang)某(mou)(mou)(mou)之(zhi)(zhi)間(jian)存在私人恩怨，不(bu)能(neng)將(jiang)傷(shang)害事(shi)件(jian)起因(yin)(yin)歸(gui)于私人恩怨而否定王(wang)某(mou)(mou)(mou)所(suo)受傷(shang)害與(yu)(yu)履行(xing)工(gong)(gong)作(zuo)職責之(zhi)(zhi)間(jian)的(de)(de)因(yin)(yin)果關系，故區人社(she)局上(shang)訴理由不(bu)能(neng)成立(li)。
宣判后(hou)，某區人社局認定王某所受(shou)傷害屬于工(gong)傷認定范圍，予以認定工(gong)傷，實質性化解了糾紛。
■法官說法
本(ben)(ben)案(an)系(xi)一起勞(lao)動者(zhe)(zhe)在工(gong)作(zuo)(zuo)(zuo)時間、工(gong)作(zuo)(zuo)(zuo)場所受(shou)到(dao)暴(bao)力的意外(wai)傷(shang)(shang)(shang)(shang)(shang)害(hai)(hai)案(an)件，對于(yu)這(zhe)種意外(wai)傷(shang)(shang)(shang)(shang)(shang)害(hai)(hai)能否(fou)認(ren)定(ding)工(gong)傷(shang)(shang)(shang)(shang)(shang)？根據(ju)《工(gong)傷(shang)(shang)(shang)(shang)(shang)保險條(tiao)例(li)》規定(ding)，認(ren)定(ding)工(gong)傷(shang)(shang)(shang)(shang)(shang)需符(fu)合“工(gong)作(zuo)(zuo)(zuo)原因(yin)、工(gong)作(zuo)(zuo)(zuo)時間、工(gong)作(zuo)(zuo)(zuo)場所”三要(yao)(yao)素。本(ben)(ben)案(an)焦(jiao)點即是圍(wei)繞勞(lao)動者(zhe)(zhe)受(shou)傷(shang)(shang)(shang)(shang)(shang)是否(fou)因(yin)履行工(gong)作(zuo)(zuo)(zuo)職責所致展開。從《工(gong)傷(shang)(shang)(shang)(shang)(shang)保險條(tiao)例(li)》立(li)法目(mu)的看，其旨在保障因(yin)工(gong)作(zuo)(zuo)(zuo)遭受(shou)事故傷(shang)(shang)(shang)(shang)(shang)害(hai)(hai)的職工(gong)獲得醫療救治和經濟(ji)補償。從制度(du)價(jia)值角度(du)適(shi)用該條(tiao)款時，應作(zuo)(zuo)(zuo)有(you)利于(yu)勞(lao)動者(zhe)(zhe)的解(jie)釋(shi)，而不應要(yao)(yao)求“純(chun)潔(jie)的受(shou)害(hai)(hai)人(ren)(ren)”，即苛求只有(you)在暴(bao)力傷(shang)(shang)(shang)(shang)(shang)害(hai)(hai)中完全(quan)無過錯的受(shou)害(hai)(hai)人(ren)(ren)方可(ke)被認(ren)定(ding)“履行工(gong)作(zuo)(zuo)(zuo)職責”。若執意于(yu)受(shou)害(hai)(hai)人(ren)(ren)完全(quan)無過錯才(cai)可(ke)認(ren)定(ding)其“履行工(gong)作(zuo)(zuo)(zuo)職責”，則與立(li)法意旨有(you)違。
本(ben)案中，王某(mou)(mou)(mou)與(yu)李(li)某(mou)(mou)(mou)因(yin)(yin)工(gong)作(zuo)原因(yin)(yin)發(fa)生(sheng)(sheng)糾(jiu)紛，李(li)某(mou)(mou)(mou)心生(sheng)(sheng)怨氣產生(sheng)(sheng)犯意(yi)，在王某(mou)(mou)(mou)埋(mai)頭工(gong)作(zuo)時突然毆打王某(mou)(mou)(mou)致其受(shou)傷。二(er)人(ren)案發(fa)前(qian)并無私人(ren)恩(en)怨，王某(mou)(mou)(mou)受(shou)到傷害(hai)系因(yin)(yin)工(gong)作(zuo)原因(yin)(yin)發(fa)生(sheng)(sheng)爭執所致，王某(mou)(mou)(mou)在此過程中雖有處理同(tong)事間工(gong)作(zuo)矛盾不妥(tuo)當的(de)(de)問題，但其對于暴力侵害(hai)行為后(hou)果(guo)并無明顯過錯，其行為并不應(ying)導致其受(shou)到暴力傷害(hai)，故本(ben)案情形不能阻卻王某(mou)(mou)(mou)“履行工(gong)作(zuo)職責(ze)”的(de)(de)認定。
日期：2024-6-19 16:30:42 | 關閉 |
Copyright © 1999-2021 法(fa)律(lv)圖書館
.
.
