civil

According to Article 59 of the Labor Standards Act, employers must compensate workers for death, disability, injury or illness due to occupational accidents. Regarding the scope of occupational accidents, Article 4 of the Criteria for Review of Injuries and Injuries Caused by the Insured Person of Labor Insurance as a result of the Performance of Duties stipulates in more detail: “The insured person goes to and from work, and travels from his or her usual place of residence to and from the place of employment at appropriate times. Or injuries caused by accidents while traveling between places of employment while engaging in two or more jobs, are deemed to be occupational injuries. However, Article 18 of the Criteria for Review of Injuries and Injuries Caused by the Insured Person’s Work due to the Performance of Duties is otherwise stipulated. It is stipulated that if the insured has any of the following circumstances, it shall not be regarded as an occupational injury:

1. Private behavior that is not necessary for daily life.

2. Driving without a driving license for the type of vehicle you are driving.

3. Driving while under suspension or having your driving license revoked.

4. Running a red light illegally at an intersection controlled by light signals.

5. Cross the railway level crossing.

6. Driving a vehicle with an alcohol concentration exceeding the prescribed limit, taking drugs, hallucinogens or controlled substances.

7. Driving a vehicle illegally on the highway shoulder.

8. Driving a vehicle in a direction that is not followed or racing, competing, snaking or driving in other dangerous ways on the road.

9. Driving a vehicle into the oncoming lane without complying with regulations.

If a worker is injured or killed in a car accident while commuting, in principle, it is considered a labor accident, and the employer must pay occupational accident compensation for the accident injuries suffered by the worker. However, if the cause of the disaster is beyond the control of the employer or can be reasonably expected, it is not an occupational disaster. In practice, the criterion for determining whether a disaster has a considerable causal relationship with business duties is whether the employee violated the various paragraphs of Article 18 of the Labor Insurance Review Guidelines for Injuries and Injuries Caused by the Insured's Performance of Duty. Among them, the most common ones are occupational accidents. The acts are determined to be the acts in paragraphs 4, 5, 8 and 9 of Article 18 respectively.

For example, the Civil Judgment No. 10 of the Taiwan High Court of Justice in 102 Years states: “Workers’ work activities and reasonable channels occur during the period when workers depart from their usual residence, place of residence or place of employment and return to their usual place of residence, place of residence or place of employment after work. Injuries caused by accidents shall be regarded as occupational accidents, but if there are violations of Article 18 of the Labor Insurance Review Guidelines for Injuries and Injuries Caused by the Insured's Performance of Duty, the cause of the danger is beyond the control of the employer or It can be reasonably expected and it is difficult to establish a causal relationship with the performance of duties. Therefore, it cannot be regarded as an occupational accident. Therefore, although the worker was killed in a car accident on the way back to the workplace after performing duties, it was because the vehicle he drove did not comply with the regulations. There is no substantial causal relationship between the accident and the execution of the business, so it cannot be regarded as an occupational accident. Therefore, the judgment of an occupational accident needs to consider whether it is a cause of danger that is controllable or reasonably foreseeable by the employer. If the employee violates the regulations. According to Article 18 of the Guidelines for Review of Injuries and Injuries Caused by Labor Insurance Insured Persons Due to the Performance of Duties, it is determined in principle that there is no considerable causal relationship between the disaster and the performance of the duties, and therefore it is not an occupational accident.