13 deaths in a fire at a commercial center; safety authorities impose penalties on the security company

Thread Content

On March 4 of last year, a serious alcohol explosion occurred at the ASEAN Lianfeng Agricultural Products Trade Center on Caiyun North Road in Guandu District (hereinafter referred to as the trade center); this accident resulted in the death of 13 people, including two children. Following the accident, the Kunming Work Safety Supervision Bureau imposed fines of 1 million yuan on Yunnan Zhongbao Liancheng Security Service Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Zhongbao Company), the entity involved in the accident, and fines of over 20,000 yuan on its legal representative, Wang Yong. The provincial work safety supervision bureau upheld the penalty decisions made by the Kunming Work Safety Supervision Bureau. Zhongbao Company and Wang Yong were dissatisfied with the penalty and took Kunming Work Safety Supervision Bureau and the Provincial Work Safety Supervision Bureau to court. Yesterday, the Chenggong District Court held a public hearing for this case of a private citizen suing a government official. Accident: Alcohol explosion kills 13 people. At around 4:36 a.m. on March 4, 2015, an alcohol explosion occurred at the ASEAN Lianfeng Agricultural Products Trading Center in Guanshang Sub-district Office and Dianying Community, Guandu District; the accident resulted in 13 deaths and direct financial losses of 8.51 million yuan. Following the incident caused by security personnel using fire improperly and setting alcohol on fire, the province established an accident investigation team composed of various departments including the Provincial Work Safety Supervision Bureau and the Provincial Public Security Fire Brigade to investigate the circumstances of the accident. The Kunming Work Safety Supervision Bureau believes that the shopping center failed to fulfill its obligations in accordance with legal requirements and the terms of the security service contract; it did not effectively supervise the security personnel assigned there to ensure strict compliance with the company’s rules and regulations. The center also failed to establish a proper system for identifying and addressing potential hazards related to production accidents, and it did not carry out adequate inspections and management of the dangerous substances and fire hazards present in the market. The security personnel on duty used fire illegally in areas near dangerous items and devices, which led to the ignition of spilled alcohol. Penalties: A fine of 1 million yuan was imposed on the security company. On February 2 this year, the Kunming Work Safety Supervision Bureau decided to impose an administrative penalty of 1 million yuan on Zhongbao Company. It was also determined that Wang Yong, the legal representative of Zhongbao Company, failed to properly manage security operations, failing to effectively supervise and inspect the safety measures in that market or to eliminate potential hazards in a timely manner; as a result, Wang Yong was fined over 20,000 yuan as an administrative penalty. An appeal was filed; the Provincial Work Safety Supervision Bureau upheld the penalty decision. Bao Insurance Company and Wang Yong, dissatisfied with this administrative penalty, submitted an appeal to the Provincial Work Safety Supervision Bureau. Following administrative reconsideration by the Provincial Work Safety Supervision Bureau, the penalty decision issued by the Kunming Work Safety Supervision Bureau was upheld. The plaintiffs filed a civil lawsuit seeking the revocation of the penalty. CPIC and Wang Yong argue that the provincial and municipal work safety supervision agencies made an error in classifying the accident in question as a major production safety liability accident; rather, it should be classified as a fire safety accident. Zhongbao Company also believes that the location where the fire and explosion occurred is part of a common area used by several companies; its security staff do not have the authority to manage it. Therefore, they should not bear legal responsibility for this incident, nor should any penalties be imposed on Zhongbao Company. Zhongbao Company and Wang Yong sued the Kunming Work Safety Supervision Bureau and the Provincial Work Safety Supervision Bureau in Chenggong District Court, requesting the revocation of the administrative penalty decision. During the trial, the director and deputy directors of the bureau appeared in court to respond to the charges. The presiding judge, Cai Jifa, deputy director of the Yunnan Provincial Work Safety Bureau, as well as Zhang Hongan, director of the Kunming Work Safety Bureau, also appeared in court to respond to the charges. In court, Cai Jifa said that regarding this alcohol-related explosion incident, through methods such as on-site inspections, tests and analyses, technical evaluations, investigations and interviews, as well as expert assessments, the provincial authorities approved the accident investigation report prepared by the investigation team on September 15, 2015. Geng Guoping, the attorney representing the Provincial Work Safety Supervision Bureau, said that according to the accident investigation report, the nature of this accident was a serious work safety liability accident. Cai Jifa and Zhang Hongan both believe that the administrative penalties imposed by the provincial and municipal safety supervision departments are reasonable and lawful, and they request the court to uphold those penalty decisions. Clash of opinions: Focus 1 – Accidents resulting from negligence in production safety or fire safety. ● China Insurance Company and Wang Yong: The provincial and municipal safety supervision agencies classified the accident in question as a serious accident resulting from negligence in production safety, which is incorrect; the nature of this accident should be determined as a fire safety accident. ●Provincial and municipal safety authorities: Geng Donghua, the attorney representing the Kunming Municipal Work Safety Bureau, believes that the accident investigation team determined that the severe accident on March 4 was caused by a leakage that occurred during the process of unloading alcohol at the Fuping Edible Alcohol Sales Department in Guandu District. Obviously, the task of removing alcohol is a necessary part of the individual’s business of buying and storing alcohol, and it falls under production and business activities. The 3·04 explosion incident was an accident that occurred during production and operation; the \"Work Safety Law\" and the \"Fire Protection Law\" were applied in determining the nature of this incident, and it was not a simple fire accident as claimed by the plaintiff. Therefore, there is a clear legal basis for classifying this accident as a work safety accident. Geng Guoping believes that the security personnel’s use of fire buckets for heating in the booth during the accident was an intervening and contributing factor, rather than the direct cause of the accident. Among the various factors that led to this accident, there were numerous violations of safety regulations, and such violations are not covered by the laws and regulations related to fire safety. Geng Guoping said that liability for fires is pursued against the direct persons responsible for the fire (natural persons), and it does not include holding business or production units accountable. In reality, however, many fires are caused by the illegal and irregular operations of such businesses. The laws and regulations regarding liability for production safety accidents serve as a necessary supplement to hold those business and production units accountable for fires that result from their operational activities. Therefore, based on the determination of the causes of the 3·04 accident and in accordance with relevant legal provisions, the participating units in the accident investigation team ultimately classified this incident as a work safety liability accident. Focus 2: Responsible parties or not ● China Insurance Company and Wang Yong: The major accident on 3·04 occurred when alcohol caught fire in a shop owned by Kunming Hongchili Trading Co., Ltd.; the fire spread to the shops in the trading center managed by China Insurance Company, thereby triggering this serious incident. They are not the responsible parties for this production safety accident, and should not bear legal responsibility for its occurrence. ●Provincial and municipal work safety authorities: Geng Guoping said that the 3·04 accident was one that had a significant negative impact across the country. Yunnan Province organized an accident investigation team in accordance with the law to conduct a thorough and comprehensive investigation of the incident. Subsequently, the six units responsible for the accident, as well as the relevant supervisory officials, were severely punished and disciplined in accordance with the law; some of those responsible were even held criminally accountable. By taking this accident as an opportunity to impose disciplinary actions on the units and individuals involved, it helped to improve work safety standards in similar industries. It also enhanced the awareness of enterprises and the general public regarding work safety and proper operations to a certain extent. The lessons learned from this accident are painful, but the investigation and handling of the incident served as a valuable educational warning to society.