At 4 o'clock on June 15, 2007, Shi Guide drove the "Nanguiji 035" to load river sand from Gaoming, Foshan to Shunde, and 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 Jiujiang Bridge, dense fog appeared on the river surface, and the visibility dropped sharply. As the captain, Shi Guide did not strengthen his lookout, choose a safe place to anchor and adopt a safe speed as required, and still ventured to sail when he could not confirm whether the white light seen in front of the bow was the main channel light. When the ship "Nanguiji 035" approached Jiujiang Bridge, Shi Guide realized that the ship had seriously deviated from the main channel due to its collision with a navigation mark about 80 meters in front of the bridge, but effective measures such as suspension were still not taken. Instead, he tried to transfer the bow to the pier of Jiujiang Bridge, thinking that the ship could avoid touching the pier of the bridge.
At about 5: 00 10, due to the ship's deviation from the fairway, the stone guide made a serious mistake in judging the fairway lights, which led to the collision between the bow and pier No.23 of Jiujiang Bridge, which led to the collapse of piers No.23, No.24 and No.25 of Jiujiang Bridge and the collapse of the deck. 1675.2m Jiujiang Bridge collapsed by 200m, causing four cars on the bridge to fall into the river and be damaged.
Event results On June 17, 2007, six people, including the captain of the vessel involved in the Jiujiang Bridge accident in Guangdong, were criminally detained by the Guangdong Maritime Public Security Bureau for the crime of suspected major liability accident. According to the police, it has been initially found that six people, including Shi Guide, the captain of "Nanguiji 035" in Foshan, and Huang Yuyou, the sailor on duty, are suspected of major accidents. According to relevant laws and regulations, the above six people have been criminally detained according to law.
On July 7, 20 1 1, the case was opened in Haizhu District People's Court of Guangzhou. When appearing in court, Shi Guide and some witnesses overturned the previous testimony, saying "I don't remember" and "I thought it was a collision". Shi Guide's lawyer even bluntly said that "it was not the ship that hit the bridge, but the bridge hit the ship". The bridge investigation report was once again questioned by the defense.
On April 2013 10, the case was heard in the second instance of Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court. In court, Shi Guide still insisted that "the bridge hit the ship", not "the ship hit the bridge". Defenders still defend the defendant's innocence, arguing that Shi Guide should be found innocent according to the legal principle of no doubt, if the possibility of the bridge collapsing due to its own hidden dangers cannot be ruled out.
The second trial held that the exploration report entrusted by Shi Guide and his family to a third party agency reflected that the exploration location was not in the same position as the original No.24 pier borehole ZK24, but far away from the original No.24 pier borehole ZK24 plane location, and the geological conditions in this location were complex and the rock surface fluctuated greatly, which could not reflect the rock surface of the original pile location. The court refused to accept the request of Shi Guide and his defenders to entrust the survey again.
2065438+On September 6, 2003/KLOC-0, Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court upheld the judgment of the court of first instance and sentenced Shi Guide to six years' imprisonment for traffic accident.
On 201July 17, Shi Guide, who was released from prison, sued the Guangdong Provincial Department of Transportation and the Guangdong Provincial Traffic Engineering Quality Supervision Station for the basic drawings and reconstruction data of the pier in the collapsed section of Jiujiang Bridge. The case was heard in the First Court of Guangzhou Railway Transportation.
Shi Guide sued that 6. 15 Jiujiang Bridge collapse case involved whether Jiujiang Bridge collapsed due to its own quality problems, but the drawings and documents of Jiujiang Bridge provided by the accident investigation department and judicial organs were incomplete, and the courts of first and second instance simply determined that the bridge had no quality problems, and the basis was obviously insufficient. Shi Guide applied to Guangdong Provincial Traffic Engineering Quality Supervision Station to disclose the above drawings of Jiujiang Bridge, but Shi Guide refused to accept it and applied to Guangdong Provincial Department of Transportation for reconsideration. The Guangdong Provincial Department of Transportation maintained the above administrative actions of the provincial quality supervision station.
Shi Guide sued, and the court revoked the reply made by the Guangdong Provincial Transportation Engineering Quality Supervision Station and the administrative reconsideration decision made by the Guangdong Provincial Department of Transportation, and ordered the provincial quality supervision station to make a new reply to its application for information disclosure of Jiujiang Bridge on National Highway 325, and to disclose relevant information.