Does the new traffic accident interpretation settle the overlap with work injury claims?

In practice employees are often injured in traffic accidents on the way to or from work, and where the traffic police find that the employee did not bear main responsibility, a work-related injury determination may be applied for. Tort liability and work injury then concur. Do they conflict, and may the employee recover twice? Does the new Judicial Interpretation (II) of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of Law in the Trial of Cases of Compensation for Damage in Road Traffic Accidents (the "Traffic Accident Damages Interpretation (II)") settle the question?

On the concurrence of tort and work injury, Article 3 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of Law in the Trial of Cases of Compensation for Personal Injury provides: "Where an employee of an employer that participates in the work-related injury insurance pool suffers personal injury in a work-related accident, and the employee or a close relative sues the employer for civil compensation, the court shall direct the claim to be handled under the Work-Related Injury Insurance Regulations. Where the personal injury is caused by the tort of a third party other than the employer and the person entitled to compensation claims civil compensation from that third party, the court shall support the claim." Article 8(2) of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Administrative Cases concerning Work-Related Injury Insurance provides that where an employee is injured for reasons attributable to a third party and the social insurance administrative department has made a work-related injury determination, but the employee or a close relative has not sued the third party or has not yet obtained civil compensation, a claim for work-related injury insurance benefits from the social insurance agency shall be supported; Article 8(3) provides that where a work-related injury results from a third party's conduct, a refusal by the social insurance agency to pay benefits on the ground that the employee or a close relative has sued the third party shall not be supported, except for medical expenses already paid by the third party. These provisions show that the two claims rest on different legal relationships, tort and social insurance. Although they arise from the same damage, they differ in legal nature, legal relationship, governing rules and the person who bears liability. Where an employee suffers personal injury through a third party's tort which also constitutes a work-related injury, and the tortfeasor has already compensated, the employee may still claim through the work injury route for all items outside the scope of medical costs, such as medical expenses, nursing costs, nutrition, travel, accommodation and food, hospital food subsidies and assistive devices for disability. Limited double recovery is therefore available.

In deciding cases judges determine liability and its scope on the facts under the limited double recovery rule. The criminal division of the Fuping court analysed 327 judgments from 2018 to 2022, with a sample drawn from China Judgments Online, and found the following patterns in practice: medical expenses are strictly subject to supplementary compensation (98.2 per cent of cases); disability compensation and the lump-sum disability subsidy may be claimed in parallel (76.5 per cent); and lost wages and wages for the period of work suspension with pay retained are set off so that the higher amount prevails (82.3 per cent) (source: the official website of the Fuping County People's Court, Shaanxi). In Shanghai, under the guidance in the Answers of the Shanghai High People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Concurrence of Work-Related Injury Insurance Compensation and Compensation for Damage Caused by Third-Party Tort (2010) and in the Shanghai High People's Court's Questions and Answers on the Application of Civil Law, issue 2 of 2010, where an employee's personal rights are infringed by a third party and the labor administration also determines a work-related injury, and the employee both sues for tort damages and applies for arbitration on work injury insurance compensation, the court should decide each claim separately in accordance with the law. After performing its obligation, the employer or the work injury insurance agency may recover the duplicated part that the employee has actually received; duplicated recovery would offend the full-compensation and actual-compensation principles of civil law. It is therefore more reasonable to determine each duplicated item at the higher of the two standards: where the tort and work injury insurance cover the same duplicated item, the higher of the two amounts, calculated under each set of rules, is the sum the employee should receive. Where a court hearing a work injury insurance case finds that the employee has already obtained full compensation for the same duplicated item under the higher-amount rule in the tort proceedings, a further claim in the work injury case will not be supported, in accordance with the full-compensation principle. Which items cannot be recovered twice and which may be cumulated may be judged by reference to the table below; practice varies by region, and this is for reference only.

On whether the new Traffic Accident Damages Interpretation (II) sets out rules on the concurrence with work injury, Article 10(1) provides that where a party claims compensation from the tortfeasor for medical expenses already paid from the basic medical insurance fund or the work injury insurance fund, or for rescue costs or funeral costs advanced by the Road Traffic Accident Social Assistance Fund, the court shall not support the claim. At its press conference the Supreme People's Court confirmed that in cases of concurrence the full-compensation principle applies, so as to prevent duplicate recovery by the injured party. In case No. 57 of the 2025 volume of Chinese Court Cases on labor disputes, including social insurance disputes, "a machinery company v. Mr Xiao, labor dispute", the court held that an employee who is injured in a work-related accident has a dual status, as both an injured worker and a victim of personal injury, and may claim work injury insurance compensation from the employer and personal injury damages from the tortfeasor; obtaining compensation from one source first, whether in whole or in part, does not exempt or reduce the liability of the other. Tort and work injury insurance are two different legal relationships, and the victim's tort recovery does not affect the social insurance liability of the enterprise, so the company's ground of appeal, that Mr Xiao had already received tort compensation and should not also receive work injury compensation, was not made out.