Delivery rider Mo was driving an electric bicycle to deliver food. One day, while driving on a certain road in Huangpu District, Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province, he encountered Hu, who was also driving an electric bicycle, driving along that road. Both parties collided, causing Hu to be injured and the vehicle to be damaged. According to the road traffic accident liability determination letter issued by Huangpu Brigade of Guangzhou Traffic Police Detachment, Mo is fully responsible and Hu is not responsible. The accident caused an open comminuted fracture of Hu's right patella, and Hu was assessed as a level 10 disability. There is a disagreement between the two parties regarding compensation. Hu sued Mo and a technology company that has a labor relationship with Mo in court. The focus of the dispute lies in whether Mo was performing his duties while driving an electric vehicle at the time of the traffic accident. If it is determined that the damage was caused by his duty, his employer shall bear the liability for compensation Judge Hu Ziyuan from Huangpu District People's Court in Guangzhou said. According to our backend data, Mo's last order was delivered at 12:06 pm; After this order was completed, he had no new orders or delivery records on that day In court, a certain technology company presented the work order records of the day and insisted that "the incident occurred within the time frame when Mo did not provide labor services, so the accident occurred during non performance of duties and had nothing to do with the company. After detailed inquiry and comparison, the court clarified the "timeline" before and after the accident: on that day, Mo's last order was delivered at 12:06:58, which was very close to 12:10 when the accident occurred; Moreover, at that time, he was still online on the order receiving platform, and according to common sense, he should have returned to the business district to receive the order again after completing the previous order. Based on the flexibility and specificity of food delivery work, coupled with the lack of clear agreements on delivery order volume and service time in Mo's labor relationship with a certain technology company. The court believes that during the period from the completion of delivery to the re acceptance of the order, Mo should be regarded as a continuation of his labor work, and the accident should be deemed to have occurred during the performance of his duties. The employer, a certain technology company, should bear the liability for infringement and compensate Hu for a loss of 186800 yuan. For the flexible employment model of new business formats, whether the worker is in the working period cannot be simply determined by clicking to accept or deliver; And a comprehensive analysis should be conducted based on their working hours, location, reasons, and other factors Hu Ziyuan said, "If the rider has intentional or gross negligence, the employer can seek compensation from them after assuming responsibility