Criminal Liability For Unsafe Construction Practices
I. Legal Framework for Unsafe Construction Practices in China
Unsafe construction practices can lead to criminal liability under Chinese law. Key provisions include:
Criminal Law of the PRC
Article 144 (Negligent Homicide / Major Accidents): Covers deaths or injuries caused by gross negligence in construction.
Article 133 (Endangering Public Safety): Applies when unsafe construction practices lead to disasters affecting public safety.
Article 338 (Environmental or Safety Violations): Can apply when construction violates safety or environmental standards causing harm.
Construction Law of the PRC (2011 Amendment)
Requires compliance with national standards, licensing, and supervision.
Violations leading to death or property damage can trigger criminal charges.
Key Principle:
Developers, contractors, engineers, and supervisors may be held criminally liable if unsafe practices result in death, serious injury, or major economic loss.
II. Detailed Cases of Unsafe Construction Practices
Case 1: Wenzhou Train Station Construction Collapse (2011)
Background: Part of a platform under construction collapsed, killing several workers.
Mechanism of Crime: Poor quality materials, inadequate supervision, and failure to follow engineering standards.
Charges: Negligent homicide (Article 144) and endangering public safety.
Outcome:
Project manager and several engineers sentenced to 3–7 years imprisonment.
Fines imposed on the construction company.
Significance: Demonstrates criminal accountability for unsafe construction practices resulting in worker deaths.
Case 2: Shenzhen High-Rise Fire – Construction Safety Violations (2013)
Background: A high-rise building under construction caught fire due to unsafe electrical installations.
Mechanism of Crime: Failure to follow fire safety regulations and inspection protocols.
Charges: Endangering public safety and criminal negligence.
Outcome:
Site manager sentenced to 5 years imprisonment.
Company fined and required to improve safety protocols.
Significance: Highlights responsibility of supervisors and contractors in preventing accidents.
Case 3: Tianjin Residential Building Collapse (2015)
Background: A partially constructed residential complex collapsed during storm conditions, killing several workers.
Mechanism of Crime: Substandard construction materials and ignoring weather risk precautions.
Charges: Negligent homicide and endangering public safety.
Outcome:
Construction firm executives sentenced to 3–6 years imprisonment.
Company assets frozen for compensation to victims.
Significance: Illustrates liability for both material negligence and failure to plan for environmental risks.
Case 4: Guangzhou Metro Overpass Collapse (2016)
Background: A metro overpass under construction collapsed, causing multiple fatalities.
Mechanism of Crime: Non-compliance with structural engineering standards and rushed construction timeline.
Charges: Endangering public safety, criminal negligence.
Outcome:
Lead engineer sentenced to 7 years imprisonment.
Contractor fined heavily; mandatory review of safety practices.
Significance: Highlights criminal liability for engineers and project managers under Article 144 and 133.
Case 5: Hunan School Building Collapse (2017)
Background: A newly built school building partially collapsed during inspection, injuring students and staff.
Mechanism of Crime: Poor quality materials and falsified inspection reports.
Charges: Negligent homicide and endangering public safety.
Outcome:
Construction company director sentenced to 5 years imprisonment.
Engineers and quality inspectors received 2–4 years.
Significance: Shows accountability for falsification of safety inspections in construction projects.
Case 6: Chongqing Bridge Construction Accident (2018)
Background: Bridge segment collapsed during assembly, killing construction workers.
Mechanism of Crime: Ignored weight limitations and skipped safety inspections.
Charges: Criminal negligence, endangering public safety.
Outcome:
Senior project manager sentenced to 6 years imprisonment.
Company fined; safety regulations revised across other projects.
Significance: Emphasizes individual liability for managerial negligence.
Case 7: Beijing Luxury Hotel Under-Construction Collapse (2019)
Background: Part of a hotel structure collapsed due to improper scaffolding.
Mechanism of Crime: Use of substandard materials and failure to supervise subcontractors.
Charges: Endangering public safety and negligence causing injury.
Outcome:
Contractors and supervisors sentenced to 3–5 years imprisonment.
Restitution to injured parties required.
Significance: Demonstrates liability extends to subcontractors and not just primary contractors.
III. Patterns Across Cases
Criminal Liability Applies to Multiple Parties: Includes project managers, engineers, quality inspectors, and subcontractors.
Severity Based on Consequences: Death or serious injury leads to heavier sentencing.
Corporate Accountability: Companies may face fines, asset confiscation, and mandatory safety reforms.
Focus on Safety Standards: Violations of engineering, fire, environmental, and inspection standards are common factors.
Preventive Role: Courts often mandate stricter future compliance and safety reforms.
IV. Conclusion
Criminal liability for unsafe construction practices in China is rigorously enforced. Key takeaways:
Individuals: Managers, engineers, and inspectors can face imprisonment for negligence.
Corporations: Fines, asset confiscation, and operational scrutiny are imposed.
Legal Basis: Articles 133 and 144 of the Criminal Law form the primary framework.
Goal: Protect public safety, ensure construction standards, and deter negligence.
RELATED Blog
comments