Attorney Shao Shiwei | Smoking at the Entrance of the Workplace and Being Accidentally Struck by a Vehicle: Can It Constitute a Work-Related Injury?

Mr. Li was an employee of a company in Hubei Province, engaged in warehouse dispatch work. Because company rules prohibited smoking in the warehouse, at 9:30 a.m. on April 5, 2019, Wu Yifan stepped out of the warehouse to smoke after working for a short period. On the way, a vehicle collided with a car parked by the roadside, and the latter vehicle then struck Wu Yifan, who was smoking by the roadside at the warehouse entrance.

The accident caused Wu Yifan to suffer hemorrhagic shock, traumatic splenic rupture, and spinal fractures. After the accident, the plaintiff, as an employee of the third party, applied to the Wuhan Municipal Human Resources and Social Security Bureau for recognition of a work-related injury.

The Wuhan Municipal Human Resources and Social Security Bureau held that the plaintiff was injured on the park road outside the warehouse because he personally left the warehouse to smoke; personal smoking did not arise from work reasons nor was it required by work needs. Therefore, the time and place of the injury did not fall within the workplace or work-related causes, and thus did not meet the criteria for deemed work-related injuries.

After commencing work, the plaintiff left the warehouse to smoke because the company prohibited employees from smoking inside the warehouse.

The traffic accident determination found Wu Zhuofan to bear “no liability.”

The term “workplace” stipulated in the relevant provision should extend to reasonable areas associated with the workplace. The plaintiff’s workplace was within the Jiahai Industrial Park. Because the employer prohibited employees from smoking inside the warehouse, the plaintiff, in order to comply with company rules, left the warehouse to smoke and was injured on the road at the warehouse entrance. The area at the warehouse entrance remains a reasonable area related to the workplace.

warehouse.

Work-related cause: Due to work-induced fatigue, the Plaintiff’s act of stepping out to smoke during working hours constituted a normal physiological need, consistent with common social understanding. It therefore remains an injury arising from work-related causes and does not exceed the scope of job duties. The time and location chosen by the Plaintiff for smoking were both within reasonable bounds.

Smoking is not a physiological necessity and differs fundamentally from eating and drinking; therefore, stepping out to smoke during work should not be deemed a work-related cause.

Wu Zhuofan did not sustain accidental injuries within the workplace.

First, the Plaintiff, Wu Zhuofan, served as a warehouse dispatcher responsible for overseeing the warehouse, clearing goods, and arranging shipments. His work location should reasonably encompass the warehouse and the adjacent areas for cargo loading and unloading. The incident occurred near the fence on the right side of the compound, less than 10 meters from the warehouse entrance, which falls within a reasonable spatial scope.

Second, the term “work-related causes” should include rest and recuperation during work breaks. Given the intermittent nature of the Plaintiff Wu Zhuofan’s work, his break times constitute part of his working hours. The Plaintiff’s act of smoking during such breaks shares the same nature as drinking water or eating, as it serves to refresh the mind and alleviate physical fatigue, constituting

a form of rest and recuperation, and thus falls within the category of “work-related causes.”

The primary purpose of the work-related injury insurance system is to safeguard injured employees’ rights to medical treatment and economic compensation, while promoting injury prevention, occupational rehabilitation, and the dispersal of employers’ work-related injury risks. In this case, the Appellee, Wu Zhuofan, smoked beside the iron fence on the right side of the warehouse building’s entrance during a reasonable break interval within working hours, without having completely left the reasonable area of the workplace. The essence of his conduct was to exercise his right to rest, which should be regarded as a continuation of work. Therefore, recognizing the accidental injury he sustained as a work-related injury aligns with the legislative intent of the Regulations on Work-Related Injury Insurance.

During rest periods, smoking beside the iron fence to the right of the warehouse building’s courtyard entrance constitutes an exercise of the employee’s right to rest and should be regarded as a continuation of work. Therefore, any accidental injury sustained thereby qualifies as a work-related injury, which aligns with the legislative purpose of the Regulations on Work-Related Injury Insurance.

Accidental injuries sustained during working hours and within the workplace due to work-related causes shall be recognized as work-related injuries.

The application of law is erroneous and inconsistent with the legislative intent of the Regulations on Work-Related Injury Insurance to protect the lawful rights and interests of employees, and should therefore be revoked.