【Trial】| Judgment rendered in the first instance by court in the case of the Xilongdu shopping mall fire that claimed the lives of 2 fire officers

Thread Content

At around 2 a.m. on October 11, 2013, an electrical fault occurred in the battery of an electric bicycle while it was being charged in the dessert preparation area of the McDonald’s Yangzhuang restaurant in Shijingshan District, Beijing. This led to a fire at the Xilongdu Shopping Center; the total area affected by the fire was over 3,800 square meters. The direct financial loss caused by the fire was estimated at 13.0842 million yuan. Two firefighters lost their lives during the efforts to extinguish the fire. 【Trial】| Judgment rendered in first instance in case of Beijing Xilongdu shopping mall fire that claimed two firefighters’ lives The Beijing Shijingshan Court recently issued a first-instance judgment regarding the serious liability accident case involving Li and Liu, along with four others, prosecuted by the Shijingshan Procuratorate – the \"10.11\" Xilongdu shopping mall fire incident. The defendant, Liu, as a fire control operator at Xilongdu, simply pressed the mute button when he noticed an anomaly in the control system; upon detecting a fire alarm, he failed to switch the fire protection system from manual to automatic mode in a timely manner, thereby delaying the opportunity to extinguish the fire. The defendant, Tao Moumou, who was the night shift manager at Xilongdu on the day of the fire, failed to effectively supervise and direct the actions of the control room staff when the fire was detected, and did not respond promptly to the emergency situation. The defendant, Li Moumou, as the general manager of the McDonald’s restaurant, failed to organize fire drills for employees and to address potential safety hazards related to fire protection facilities. The defendant, Chen Moumou, as the shift manager at Yangzhuang Restaurant on the day of the incident, failed to take timely and effective action to organize his employees to carry out initial firefighting efforts, thereby missing the best opportunity to extinguish the fire. The defendant Qi, as the person in charge of the Xilongdu Shopping Center and its fire safety officer, routinely arranged for only one person to be on duty in the control room at night, which created safety risks. He also failed to provide fire safety training to the night shift managers and control room staff, resulting in those employees being unable to respond effectively once a fire was detected. Based on the facts, nature, circumstances of the crimes committed by the five defendants, as well as the degree of harm they caused to society, the Shijingshan Court ruled that all five were guilty of the crime of serious responsibility accidents. Liu was sentenced to 3 years and 6 months in prison, Tao to 3 years and 6 months, Li to 3 years, Chen to 2 years, and Qi to 2 years. At around 2 a.m. on October 11, 2013, a fire broke out at the McDonald’s Yangzhuang restaurant located in the Xilongdu Shopping Center at No. 13 Apple Garden South Road, Shijingshan District, Beijing. The fire was caused by an electrical malfunction in the battery of an electric bicycle that was being charged in the dessert preparation area. According to post-disaster assessments, the burned area of this center totaled over 3,800 square meters, with the direct property damage estimated at 13,084,200 yuan. Meanwhile, two fire officers died during the firefighting operation. The 5 defendants are Li Xiaoyan, general manager of the Yangzhuang restaurant of Beijing McDonald’s Food Co., Ltd.; Chen Yanjie, production and operation manager of the same restaurant; Qi Xin, office director of Beijing Xilongdu Shopping Center Co., Ltd.; Tao Zhangming, night shift manager at Beijing Xilongdu Shopping Center Co., Ltd.; and Liu Bo, fire control operator at the same shopping center. Among them, the youngest is Chen Yanjie, who is only 25 years old. All 5 defendants were charged with the crime of major liability accident. At the trial, videos were shown to reconstruct what happened at the scene. Lawyers claimed that the McDonald’s staff acted improperly. During the trial, the prosecution presented several video surveillance recordings from the McDonald’s restaurant, the manager’s office, and the Xilongdu fire station as evidence to prove the actions taken by the five defendants on the day of the incident. As can be seen from the videos from the trial, white smoke emerged from the McDonald’s restaurant after the fire broke out, and some employees operated the fire alarm system; according to the relevant evidence, these employees performed a “reset operation”. The defense lawyer for the defendant Qi Xin argued that such actions were the fundamental cause of this serious liability accident. Furthermore, in the early stages of the October 11 Xilongdu fire accident, McDonald’s employees took no emergency measures. According to the on-site footage from the McDonald’s Yangzhuang restaurant and the testimony of McDonald’s employees: an unusual odor was detected at 2:52 ； At 2:56, Chen Yanjie noticed smoke emerging suddenly from the lower-western part of the south-side counter in the dessert preparation area; he then ran out of the McDonald’s restaurant ； At 2:58, a McDonald’s employee performed a “reset operation” on the fire alarm system in that restaurant’s area” ； At 2:59, the employees inside the McDonald’s restaurant began to evacuate one after another. At 3:12, the acrylic light boxes and LED screens on the south side of the McDonald’s restaurant caught fire, and soon full-scale combustion ensued. During the trial, Liu Bo also said that the first two alarms he saw were not fire alarms, but machine alarms. The defense attorney believes that this was caused by the McDonald’s employees performing a reset operation. The first alarm in the Xilongdu control room was received at 2:56. Due to McDonald’s \"reset operation,\" Liu Bo in the control room failed to obtain accurate information about the fire, which led to misjudgments and delayed emergency response, resulting in the loss of the optimal timing to extinguish the fire. McDonald’s store manager: Prosecution’s claim – failure to fulfill fire safety responsibilities; Defense – fire training and drills are not my responsibility. The prosecution argues that the defendant, Li Xiaoyan, as the general manager of McDonald’s Yangzhuang restaurant and the person in charge of fire safety, failed to carry out her duties by organizing effective fire training and drills for employees, as well as addressing potential hazards related to fire safety equipment, and is therefore responsible for any fires that occurred. “I am not committing a crime. ”Li Xiaoyan replied during the trial, “Fire training drills are not within my scope of responsibilities.” ”Li Xiaoyan, 30 years old, was sitting in casual clothes on the defendant’s bench; it was evident that she was several months pregnant. In the face of the prosecution’s charges, Li Xiaoyan spoke in a very firm tone. She stated that McDonald’s does not have any fire safety department at all, and that she was not given any training regarding fire safety or other related matters. “No one has ever trained me, so how can they expect me to train my employees? ! ”Li Xiaoyan repeated this sentence over and over again. The prosecution argued that, according to the information provided by McDonald’s, Li Xiaoyan was the general manager of the McDonald’s restaurant in Yangzhuang, as well as the person responsible for fire safety at that store. However, Li Xiaoyan strongly opposed this. “From the first day of my promotion, no one told me that I was the person responsible for fire safety; the person in charge of fire safety in the store should have been Huang Zhiqiang, our restaurant manager. ” However, the prosecution stated that according to the relevant regulations issued by McDonald’s, the person responsible for fire safety at the store is actually the manager, and a fire safety team is established, with employees serving on that team. Li Xiaoyan said that she merely conducted a two-hour video-based fire safety training for the employees as required by the company, with the actual training being carried out by the restaurant’s human resources manager. McDonald’s shift manager: The prosecution alleges failure to carry out proper emergency response measures. Defense: I was in a state of shock at the time; I did everything I could to organize self-rescue efforts. As the shift manager at the restaurant on that day, the defendant Chen Yanjie is accused by the prosecution of failing to organize the staff to carry out fire-related self-rescue actions in accordance with fire safety requirements and McDonald’s company policies for emergency response, which resulted in the initial fire not being controlled effectively and led to serious consequences; he is therefore held responsible for the fire. In response, Chen Yanjie also denied it, stating that he had done his best and taken self-help measures. But when questioned by the prosecution as to why, upon noticing heavy smoke coming from the dessert preparation area, he fled through the nearby door instead of leading the customers inside to the back door for evacuation and taking other rescue measures, Chen Yanjie said he was also \"confused\" at that time, but he shouted for the staff to turn off the power supply; afterwards he went around to the back door from outside, opened it, and entered to check the situation. The director of the Shilongdu shopping center: The prosecution alleges that for many years only one fire control operator was assigned to the position. Defense: It is difficult to find such operators. In addition to the McDonald’s store managers being charged, Qi Xin, the director of the Shilongdu shopping center, is also accused of failing, as the person in charge of the shopping center and the fire safety officer, to address safety issues such as the adequacy of the staffing on duty in accordance with fire safety regulations, and thus being responsible for the fire. The prosecution also pointed out that, according to fire safety regulations, a facility must have at least two fire control operators on duty. The Xilongdu shopping center always has only one fire control operator, and Qi Xin is the top official directly responsible for this matter. Qi Xin, who was once a representative to the 15th People’s Congress of Shijingshan District, said that he was aware of this situation, but the reason for it was the difficulty in finding firefighters for the control center. Furthermore, Liu Bo, another defendant in this case and the only fire control operator on duty on the day of the incident, was also hired following an interview conducted by Qi Xin. However, according to Liu Bo’s testimony, Qi Xin approved his employment at that time but did not provide him with any training. Qi Xin argued that Liu Bo was with other control room operators, constantly in a state of “training”. Fire control operator, night shift manager at the shopping mall. Prosecution’s charge: inadequate response to emergencies. Statement: I take responsibility; I admit my fault. As of the day of the incident, 37-year-old fire control operator Liu Bo was still on probation, just three or four days away from becoming a full-time employee. “When I started working there, I knew that only one fire control operator was on duty at the company, and I was aware that this did not comply with regulations. I raised this issue several times with Qi Xin and Tao Zhangming, the manager on night shift, but it was never resolved. ” During the trial, Liu Bo, who was a former soldier, was the only defendant who was not released on bail. When the presiding judge asked why he accepted the job despite knowing the company was in violation of regulations, Liu Bo became somewhat emotional. “I know I have a responsibility, and the reason I didn’t refuse is that my salary is 1600 yuan per month; I don’t want to lose this job. ” The prosecution alleged that as the fire control operator at the Xilongdu Shopping Center, Liu Bo failed to fulfill his duties properly and did not respond promptly to the emergency, resulting in the initial fire not being effectively controlled and leading to serious consequences; he is therefore responsible for the fire. Liu Bo pleaded guilty to the charges brought by the prosecution. Previously, media reports suggested that Liu Bo played computer games during working hours, which prevented him from responding promptly to the initial fire alarm. In response, Liu Bo expressed disagreement: “I wasn’t playing games; I was looking up some information about fire safety at that time.” ” Tao Zhangming, the night shift manager at Xilongdu Shopping Center, pleaded guilty to the prosecution’s charges of failing to fulfill his job duties and responding inadequately to emergencies. “The company has assigned me the task of assisting the control room operator, which specifically involves making rounds. If a fire alarm goes off, I have to go to the site of the fire to check it out, and that’s exactly what I did at the time; nevertheless, I am still responsible, and I admit my fault.