Introduction
Recently, the tragic death of 59-year-old elevator maintenance technician, Chan, has cast a stark light on a silent epidemic within Hong Kong's workforce. Chan reportedly collapsed and died due to suspected overwork, a phenomenon often termed "karoshi" (過勞死), a Japanese word meaning "death from overwork"1.
However, in a devastating blow to his grieving family, his employer refused to recognise the death as an occupational accident. Now, his widow, Mrs Chan, is embarking on an arduous journey to seek justice for her husband, a path fraught with obstacles that has led her to apply for legal aid2.
Her struggle is not an isolated one. Hong Kong currently lacks a clear legal definition for "karoshi", and there is no specific legislation or compensation scheme addressing deaths from chronic overwork. This legal vacuum makes it exceedingly difficult for families to claim compensation.
This systemic failure is underscored by a chilling statistic. Over the past five years, 663 employees have died during work in Hong Kong, with many of these cases potentially linked to the insidious toll of workplace stress and exhaustion3.
What is "karoshi"?
"Karoshi" is not merely a synonym for working long hours, it is a medically and socially recognised syndrome. It refers to fatal incidents, such as heart attacks, strokes, or suicides, precipitated by extreme physical and mental fatigue accumulated from prolonged and excessively demanding work conditions. The key factors often include:
- Consistently working far beyond standard shifts, often without adequate rest or days off;
- Intense pressure, unrealistic deadlines, and a high-stakes work environment; and
- Chronic fatigue that impairs the body's ability to recover.
The tragedy of karoshi lies in its preventability. It is not a sudden, unforeseeable event but often the culmination of a sustained period of intense work pressure that overwhelms the body's physiological limits.
Relevant laws
In the absence of specific laws, claimants in Hong Kong like Mrs Chan can only make a claim for employees compensation under the Employees' Compensation Ordinance("ECO") and/or for damages for negligence under the common law.
Section 5 of ECO
Section 5(1) of the ECO imposes liability on the employer to pay compensation "if in any employment, personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment is caused to an employee". The critical challenge is proving that a death from an illness like a heart attack qualifies as an "accident", but not results of a chronic pathological process that have gone on for years.In our previous newsletter, we have provided that identifying the triggering event in non-traumatic accidents can be difficult and poses a major hurdle for the claimant.
Negligence
This is a separate common law claim. To succeed in a negligence claim against an employer, the claimant must prove:
- The employer owed a duty of care to the employee (to provide a safe system of work).
- The employer breached that duty (e.g., by enforcing dangerously long hours, ignoring health and safety protocols, or failing to address known risks).
- This breach caused the employee's injury or death.
- The employee suffered damages as a result.
Application
Applying these legal frameworks to Mr Chan's case illustrates why his widow faces such a difficult battle.
Under ECO, Mrs Chan would need to prove that her husband's fatal collapse was an "accident" that "arose out of and in the course of his employment." This would involve gathering compelling evidence of his work patterns including but not limited timesheets, work diaries, testimony from colleagues showing he worked extreme and relentless overtime. Crucially, they would need medical expert to testify that this pattern of work was the primary, or a significant contributing, cause of his fatal medical event.
To prove negligence, the case would need to go further. It would need to be shown that the employer was aware, or should have been aware, of the risks to Mr Chan's health. Did they ignore warning signs? Did they have a policy that mandated unsustainable workloads? Was there a culture of forced overtime? Proving this level of corporate knowledge and fault is a formidable challenge, often requiring internal documents and witness statements that are hard to obtain.
Takeaways
The case of Mr Chan is more than a single tragedy. It is a symptom of a broader societal issue.
There is a need for Hong Kong to follow the examples of countries like Japan and establish a legal definition of "karoshi" or work-related fatal fatigue. This would create a presumptive link between certain types of deaths and specific patterns of overwork, shifting the burden of proof and making it easier for families to receive compensation without a gruelling legal fight.
Employers should move beyond mere compliance and proactively safeguard their employees' well-being. This includes enforcing reasonable working hours, managing workloads, encouraging breaks, and creating environments where employees can report excessive stress without fear.
Footnotes
1. See HK01 news, "電梯工過勞死｜香港不承認過勞死 落後日本台灣 家屬索償困難", published on 18 August 2025, https://www.hk01.com/article/60267147
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
