The plaintiff Jiang’s husband, Huang, was a worker of a biological company in Shandong. At 18:5 on March 24, 2012, Huang’s electric bicycle collided with the car driving in the same direction on his way to work and died on the spot. On March 29, the traffic police department made the "Responsibility Certificate for Road Traffic Accidents". On the grounds that Huang was drunk driving an electric bicycle and did not drive according to the prescribed lane, he was determined that Huang was responsible for the traffic accident, and then settled the case. On April 11, the plaintiff filed an application for work-related injury identification with the County Human Resources and Social Security Bureau (hereinafter referred to as the Human Resources and Social Security Bureau). The defendant believed that Huang was in a traffic accident caused by drunk driving of electric vehicles according to the “Responsibility Certificate for Road Traffic Accidents” submitted by the plaintiff. After the death, he made a "Decision on Not Approving Work Injury". The plaintiff denied that Huang was drunk driving and requested the court to revoke the "Decision of Work Injury". The Defendant Social Affairs Bureau contends that the "Road Traffic Accident Responsibility Certificate" has stated the fact that Huang was drunk driving an electric bicycle. It is a situation that is not recognized or deemed to be a work-related injury as stipulated in the Regulations on Industrial Injury Insurance, and is requested to be maintained.
There are two different opinions in the trial process.
According to one opinion, after the defendant accepted the application for the work injury of the plaintiff in the case, according to the “Responsibility Certificate for Road Traffic Accidents” submitted by the plaintiff, it was found that Huang was not driving improperly driving the electric bicycle on the way to work, so Huang’s death belonged to “Work Injury Insurance”. The circumstances specified in the Regulations are not recognized or treated as work-related injuries. The plaintiff claimed that Huang was not drunk driving. Although he provided witness testimony in court, he proved that Huang was drinking but not drunk, but it was only a single piece of evidence, and he could not resist the conclusion that Huang was drunk in the Road Traffic Accident Responsibility Certificate. Therefore, the defendant did not recognize Huang’s death as a work-related injury. The facts are clear and the applicable law is correct. The specific administrative actions of the defendant should be maintained.
Another opinion is that Huang, as a worker of a biological company, was killed by a traffic accident that was not his primary responsibility on the way to work, and that he was found to be in compliance with the work-related injury as stipulated in Article 14 (6) of the Regulations on Industrial Injury Insurance; the defendant did not provide The direct evidence of drunkenness in Huang’s accidental death was based solely on the “Risk Traffic Accident Responsibility Certificate”, which confirmed that Huang’s drunk driving directly confirmed Huang’s drunkenness and failed to fulfill the review obligation of Huang’s drunkenness conclusion. Administrative actions by the defendant that do not recognize work-related injuries shall be revoked.
The author agrees with the second opinion on the grounds that:
1. The facts stated in the traffic accident certificate cannot be considered as evidence of direct acceptance. In the litigation, the parties may challenge the authenticity, reliability and scientificity of the traffic accident certificate as evidence. The fact finding itself is not within the scope of the division of powers of the state functional departments. Each state function can make its own facts in the cases that it has the right to handle, but this fact is determined to have no established facts for the functional departments of other countries. Effectiveness. In particular, for a court that has the final jurisdiction, the factual determination made by other departments is only evidence that the parties provide to the court to prove their claim or defense. The court must legally examine whether it can be called evidence to prove the facts of the case and What is the proof? The parties may conduct litigation and defense in accordance with the facts and responsibilities they claim, and are not subject to the limitation of liability. In the practice of trials, there has been a long-standing misunderstanding of the adoption of traffic accident certificates. Some judges do not check the causes and facts, faults, and responsibilities of the traffic accidents, and directly adopt the traffic accident identification book as the conviction evidence, and do not consider too much the facts of the parties' defenses. This has caused negative negative effects for a long time. The court shall, based on the rules of evidence, determine whether the facts of the case are true and accurate, and whether the division of responsibility is appropriate, and then determine whether or not to use the evidence, and not simply equate the liability with the effective ruling and directly as the basis for the final decision. Therefore, this case is based only on the fact that the parties have an ambiguous traffic accident certificate, and cannot confirm the authenticity of the facts stated in the traffic accident certificate. That is, Huang Mou drunkenness expressed in the traffic accident certificate is a fact to be proved because the plaintiff expressed dissent. . Therefore, the fact that Huang is drunk driving as stated in the traffic accident certificate cannot be regarded as evidence of direct acceptance.
2. Materials such as test conclusions and diagnostic certificates cannot be used as direct evidence for finalization. Article 32 of the Administrative Litigation Law: "The defendant shall bear the burden of proof for the specific administrative act made, and shall provide evidence of the specific administrative act and the normative documents on which it is based." The institutional arrangement for administrative litigation is through administrative litigation. The law raises personal interests into legal rights and grants individuals the right to appeal against the government in order to achieve the constitutional purpose of the relative balance between public and private rights. The core task of administrative litigation is to examine the legitimacy of the specific administrative actions of the administrative organs. The trial is based on evidence that “in the court, only evidence has no facts”, no matter how true and objective the facts are based on the specific administrative actions made by the executive, but if it is in the form or content and the requirements of the law In contrast, the administrative agency may bear the risk of losing the lawsuit. In this case, the defendant's social bureau should be responsible for proving the legality of its actions. If it cannot be proved, it will bear the risk of losing the case. The plaintiff in this case denied the fact that Huang was drunk in the traffic accident liability book, and the defendant claimed that “Huang was drunk” should bear the burden of proof. The "Work Injury Insurance Regulations" implemented on January 1, 2004 and the "Work Injury Insurance Regulations" revised on January 1, 2011 did not explain "drunkenness". The implementation of the "Chinese People's People's Republic of China" on July 1, 2011 Article 10 of the Several Provisions of the Social Insurance Law of the Republic stipulates that the drunkenness standard in Article 37, Item 2 of the Insurance Law shall be implemented in accordance with the Threshold and Inspection of Blood and Expiratory Alcohol Content of Vehicle Drivers. The inspection conclusions, diagnostic certificates and other materials issued by the public security organ traffic management department, medical institutions and other relevant units can be used as the basis for determining the drunkenness. The defendant in this case did not provide the test conclusion and diagnosis certificate of the alcohol content of the victim Huang. Therefore, there is no direct evidence for the drunkenness of Huang.
In summary, administrative evidence should be collected in accordance with the law and reviewed and confirmed by the administrative authorities before it can be used as the basis for finalization. The Defendant and Social Security Bureau will hand over the identification and judgment of the factual authenticity of the traffic accident to the traffic police department, failing to fulfill the obligation to review the facts of the work-related injury, and the facts expressed in the road traffic accident liability book cannot be As the basis for determining the work injury.