Emily Chueh
The Taiwan High Court rendered the 108-Lao-Shang-Yi-82 Decision of November 27, 2019 (hereinafter, the “Decision”), holding as follows: if a worker is disabled or injured as a result of an occupational accident, the employer shall compensate the medical expenses and the losses in connection with the inability to work; and if work is contracted again, the business organization or the final contractor shall assume the joint and several liability with the contractor or intermediate contractor. However, it is still required that an occupational accident takes place when work is performed as instructed by the employer (i.e., the factor of business execution), and that there should be certain causal relations between an accident and the business undertaken by the employee (i.e., the cause factor) in order to establish such accident.
According to the facts underlying this Decision, Appellee Company A was a contractor for a particular renovation project (hereinafter, the “Project at Issue”), whose masonry project was subcontracted to Appellee X, who then hired the Appellant to carry out the masonry project, while Y handled the aluminum window project. Y requested the Appellant to hold the awning in place. However, since there was no security equipment set up on site, the Appellant fell from the second floor to the first floor, sustaining injuries such as a communited fracture. The Appellant asserted that he had had an occupational accident with X being the Appellant’s employer. Company A was the general contractor of the interior decoration project at issue and is also the employer within the meaning of Article 2, Subparagraph 3 of the Occupational Sanitation and Safety Law. Since they failed to set up protective equipment such as guard rails or safety nets and to require the Appellant to use protective gears such as safety harnesses, they are negligent for violation of Article 6, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 5 of the Occupational Safety and Sanitation Law, Articles, 224, 225 and 281 of the Regulations Governing Occupational Safety and Sanitation Facilities and Article 483-1 of the Civil Code. Therefore, the Appellant claimed joint and several compensation from the Appellee for medical expenses, losses from the inability to work due to medical treatment and a solatium in accordance with Article 59, Subparagraphs 1 and 2 of the Labor Standards Law (hereinafter, the “Law”) and Article 184, Paragraph 1 (first part) and Paragraph 2, Article 193, Paragraph 1 and Article 195, Paragraph 1 of the Civil Code. The original decision was rendered against the Appellant. Dissatisfied, the Appellant appealed.
According to this Decision, Article 59, Subparagraphs 1 and 2 of the Law provide that if a worker is disabled or injured due to an occupational accident, the employer shall compensate the medical expenses, and if the worker cannot work in the course of medical treatment, the employer shall provide a compensation based on the original wage amount. In addition, Article 62 of the Labor Standards Law provides that for a business organization that has contracted its business to people, if work is contracted again, the contractor or intermediate contractor shall assume joint and several liability for compensating a worker hired for the contract for an occupational accident with the last contractor. Therefore, if a worker is disabled or injured due to an occupational accident, the employer shall compensate the medical expenses and the losses from the inability to work based on the original wage amount. If the work is contracted again, the business organization or the last contractor shall assume the joint and compensation liability for the occupational accident with the contractor or intermediate contractor.
However, it was found in this Decision that the injury at issue took place since the Appellant assisted Y with the installation of the awning on his own and fell as a result. This had nothing to do with his masonry work and did not happen under the guidance and supervision of his employer. Since there are no factors of business causes and business execution, it is difficult to conclude that it is an occupational accident within the meaning of the Occupational Accident and Sanitation Law. Therefore, if the Appellant claimed medical expenses, losses from the inability to work and a solatium, such claim would be groundless.
In addition, the court held that since the Appellant did not work on a job site above 2 meters high and typically did not run the risk of falling, the employer is not required to set up protective equipment or use protective gears such as safety harnesses pursuant to Article 6, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 5 of the Occupational Safety and Sanitation Law, Articles 224, 225 and 281 of the Regulations Governing Occupational Safety and Sanitation Facilities and Article 483-1 of the Civil Code. Therefore, the Appellant’s assertion that the Appellee and others should be liable for tort due to their failure to provide necessary safety and sanitation equipment and measures on the job site is also groundless.