The driver was involved in a car accident, and the legal relationship between the company and the driver became the focus of controversy

　　How to return the driver after delivering the person has always been a problem faced by practitioners in this industry. Xu, the driver of the e-driving company, drove the owner to Wangjing. As he continued to work, he got into the return car of Li, the driver of the e-driving company. As a result, a traffic accident occurred, resulting in serious injuries to both of them. Xu believes that Li, the driver of the return car, was hired by the e-driving company, and the e-driving company should bear joint and several liability. However, after the two parties appealed to court, the court of first instance found that the e-driving company was irresponsible, and Xu refused to accept the appeal. Yesterday, the case was heard in the Third Intermediate Court of Beijing.

　　The first instance determined that the e-driving company was not responsible

　　It is reported that in January 2014, the driver Li driving a vehicle and two cars in a traffic accident, resulting in the passenger e-driving company driver Xu serious injury, Li also injured, the traffic police determined that Li was fully responsible for the accident. Xu believes that Li is also an employee of the e-driving company and was performing his duties when the accident occurred. Therefore, the lawsuit requires Li and the company, the insurance company that was hit by the two cars, to compensate more than 780,000 yuan for medical expenses, missed work expenses, etc.

　　The court of first instance held that the plaintiff’s claim that Li was employed by the e-driving company at the time of the incident and was performing his duties at the time of the accident was insufficient and could not be accepted. The insurance company and the driver Li who was hit by the two cars were judged to be liable for compensation, and a total of more than 540,000 yuan was compensated for Xu’s medical expenses. The plaintiff Xu refused to accept the judgment of first instance and appealed to the Beijing Third Middle Court, demanding that the driving company and Li bear joint and several liability and increase the amount of compensation.

　　The two drivers were contacted through a carpooling app

　　The focus of the original defendant’s dispute was whether Li had an employment relationship with the e-driving company. The plaintiff, Xu, said that he was also the driver of the e-driving company before the incident, and that he was engaged in the driving business that day, driving a vehicle from Sanlitun to send a car owner back to Wangjing. Since he needed to return to Sanlitun again to find the next business, he contacted the return car driver Li through an internal mobile phone software system of the driving company. Xu said that Li specifically sent the driver who stayed in the Wangjing area back to Sanlitun and other places. Xu said that when the e-driving was hired, the company said that it could take the return car through the company’s internal e-carpooling software.

　　Xu also said that the Fukang car series driven by Li was purchased for more than 9,000 yuan many years ago, and the car was not insured or transferred. The e-driving company did not strictly review it, so it was subject to liability.

　　Employment relationship or only providing platform into dispute

　　When the 2nd-round Moderation case was heard yesterday, the plaintiff Xu insisted that the e-driving company should also be responsible. The e-driving company argued that there was no agreement on the return ride in the agreement between the company and the driver Xu, and the travel cost was borne by the driver himself, which had nothing to do with the company.

　　And the company is only a driving platform, the driver and the company are not an employment relationship, but a cooperative relationship, so it is not recognized that the carpooling software in Li’s mobile phone is developed and operated by him. Whether the carpooling software is owned by the e-driving company, because the e-driving company questioned the legitimacy of the appraisal opinion, the attribution issue was not confirmed in court.

　　Because the e-driving company does not agree to mediation, the case will be decided at a later date.

　　By our reporter, Yang Lin