At about 4:00 on June 15, 2007, Shigui was driving the "Nanguiji 035" ship from Gaoming, Foshan, loading river sand to Shunde. There was light fog on the river during the voyage. At about 5 o'clock, when the ship was about 1,100 meters away from the Jiujiang Bridge, thick fog appeared on the river and visibility dropped sharply. As the captain, Shiguide failed to strengthen the lookout, choose a safe place to anchor, and adopt a safe speed as required. He still took risks and sailed without being able to confirm whether the white light seen in front of the ship's bow was the main channel light. When the "Nanguiji 035" ship approached the Jiujiang Bridge, Shigui realized that the ship had seriously deviated from the main channel due to a collision with a navigation mark about 80 meters in front of the bridge, but no effective measures such as suspending sailing were taken. Instead, he tried to move the bow of the ship to the piers of the Jiujiang Bridge, thinking that the ship could avoid hitting the bridge's piers.
At around 5:10, because the ship deviated from the channel, the guide Shi made a serious misjudgment of the channel lights, causing the ship's bow to collide with the 23rd pier of the Jiujiang Bridge. collapsed, causing the bridge deck to collapse. The 1,675.2-meter Jiujiang Bridge collapsed by 200 meters, causing four cars traveling on the bridge to fall into the river and be damaged (.
The result of the incident. On June 17, 2007, the captain of the ship involved in the Jiujiang Bridge accident in Guangdong and 6 other people According to the police, six people including Captain Shi Guide and the sailor on duty Huang Yuyou of Foshan's "Nanguiji 035" were criminally detained by the Guangdong Maritime Public Security Bureau on suspicion of serious accidents. According to relevant laws and regulations. The above-mentioned six people have been criminally detained in accordance with the law. On July 7, 2011, when the case was heard in the Guangzhou Haizhu District People's Court, Shiguide and some witnesses overturned their previous testimony, saying, "No. I remember" and "I thought it was a collision." Schneider's lawyer even said bluntly that "it was not a ship that hit the bridge, but the bridge that hit the ship." The bridge investigation report was once again questioned by the defense.
2013 On April 10, the second instance of the case was held in the Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court. Shiguide still insisted in court that it was a "bridge hitting a boat" and not a "boat hitting a bridge." The defender still defended the defendant's innocence. In the case where the possibility of the bridge collapsing due to its own hidden dangers cannot be ruled out, Shi Guide should be found innocent according to the legal principle of suspicion.
The second instance held that Shi Guide and his family entrusted a third-party agency to provide evidence. The exploration report reflects that the exploration location is not at the same location as the original borehole ZK24 on Pier 24, but is far away from the plane position of ZK24, the original borehole on Pier 24. Moreover, the geological conditions at this location are complex and the rock surface is undulating, which cannot reflect the rock formation of the original pile location. The court refused to accept the request of Shi Guide and his defender to re-entrust investigation.
On September 16, 2003, the Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court upheld the judgment of the first instance court and sentenced Shi Guide to fixed-term imprisonment for the crime of traffic accident. 6 years.
On 17th, 2017, Shi Guide, who was released from prison, sued the Guangdong Provincial Department of Transportation and the Guangdong Provincial Transportation Engineering Quality Supervision Station over the foundation drawings and reconstruction information of the collapsed section of the Jiujiang Bridge. The First Court of Guangzhou Railway Transportation opened a trial.
Shiguide filed a lawsuit saying that the trial of the June 15 Jiujiang Bridge collapse case involved whether the Jiujiang Bridge collapsed due to its own quality problems, but the drawings of the Jiujiang Bridge provided by the accident investigation department and judicial authorities , the documents were incomplete, and the first and second instance courts simply determined that the bridge had no quality problems, which was obviously insufficient. Shigui’s application to the Guangdong Provincial Transportation Engineering Quality Supervision Station for disclosure of the above drawings of the Jiujiang Bridge was rejected. However, Shigui was dissatisfied and applied to the Guangdong Provincial Department of Transportation for reconsideration. The Guangdong Provincial Department of Transportation upheld the above-mentioned administrative action of the Provincial Quality Supervision Station.
Shiguide sued, and the court revoked the reply issued by the Guangdong Provincial Transportation Engineering Quality Supervision Station and the administrative review issued by the Guangdong Provincial Department of Transportation. It was decided to order the Provincial Quality Supervision Station to provide a new response to its application for information disclosure on the 325 National Highway Jiujiang Bridge and disclose relevant information.