The court: 
          Around at 17:00 on June 11 2007, a building materials Co., Ltd. service team captain arrange stevedores and forklift operator Hua Wang, a (after investigation, the company is one of China a forklift operator, special equipment operator certificate does not hold ) to a workshop fitted with seven small 10 meters of cement pole trailer truck, barge loaded onto trucks Sinotrans. Since the workshop part of the head is not qualified poles in the pole head below, Wang and China actually installed a rod 23. When the job, with a forklift truck workers Hua once a loading shovel 3-4 to root cement pole loading and unloading inside the car, stevedores Wang stood inside the car with a crowbar fixed in cement pole position inside the car, get out of the trunk to prevent the pole. 5:30 or so, has been installed inside the car 22 cement poles (four floors, the bottom seven, followed by 6, 5, 4), when the last one loaded cement poles, due to cement power rod did not slide into the slot rod, cement poles carriages outside continued to roll, Wang stood in the rear of the trunk with a crowbar fixed a small cement pole head-end, the bulk of the side to get out of the trunk, but falling to the ground, small head end natural tilt, then in order to avoid Wang, ran to the rear foot trunk 内绳索 was a stumbling, falling to the rear of the ground, then the bulk cement pole landing, head along the block car plate slid, hit the Wang's neck at, causing Wang died on the spot. 
Differences of opinion: 
The first one view: Hua certain undocumented work accidents, resulting in the death of Wang with the job, suspected of the crime of major liability accident. 
Second view: China certain undocumented work accident should bear the responsibility, but it should treat specific conditions, arrangements for Chinese companies did not participate in training to learn some evidence and long-term use, and the enterprises have no truck mounted poles rules, the employer unit liability should be greater than the workers responsibilities, so China is not suspected of a crime of major accidents. 
Comment: I agree with the second opinion. 
First, from the cause of the accident, the basic method of responsibility identified, look at China a responsibility in the accident. 
Cause of the accident is divided into: 
(A) the direct cause: the cause of the accident is closest in time, and once the reason. 
1, the reasons thereof: is caused due to poor equipment, also known unsafe condition thereof. Unsafe condition called object is to make the accident can occur unsafe conditions or physical conditions of objects. 
2, for environmental reasons: that due to the adverse environment caused. 
3, human reason: refers to accidents due to human caused by unsafe behavior. The so-called people's unsafe behavior refers to violations of safety rules and safe operation principle, so that there may be an accident or an act of chance. 
(B) the indirect cause: refers to the cause of the accident causes. 
1, for technical reasons: technical aspects, including the main plant, machinery, building design, building maintenance inspection after completion imperfect, layout design and maintenance of machinery and equipment, factory floor, indoor lighting and ventilation, machine tools, dangerous place protective equipment and alarm equipment, protective equipment maintenance and other technical defects with the presence. 
2, because of education: including safety-related knowledge and lack of experience on the job during the dangerous and safe operation of the method ignorance, contempt, do not understand, lack of training, bad habits and no experience. 
3, the body of reasons: including physical defects or due to lack of sleep caused by fatigue. 
4, spiritual reasons: including neglect, resistance, resentment and other negative attitudes, anxiety, tension, terror and other mental conditions, intolerant, stubborn personality and other defects. 
5, the management of reasons: the main leaders including enterprise security is not strong sense of responsibility, work standards are not clear, the lack of inspection and maintenance system, labor organizations unreasonable. 
(C) the main reason (for the dominant cause of the accident) 
The main reason may be the direct cause, but also indirect causes. Where the following reasons for the accident, you should first pursue leadership responsibilities. 
1, did not follow the provisions of the worker safety education and technical training or examination on the posts without operation. 
2, the lack of security technologies and procedures or institutional procedures unsound. 
3, the device serious disrepair or super load operation. 
4, safety measures, safety signals, safety signs, safety equipment, personal protective equipment is lacking or defective. 
5, turn a blind eye on the accident, do not take serious measures or misappropriation of funds safety technical measures, resulting in recurrence of similar accidents. 
6, the lack of on-site work inspection or guidance wrong. 
Where has the following causes of the accident, the perpetrators should be held accountable and associated personnel. 
1, illegal command or illegal operations, adventurous job. 
2, violation of safety production responsibility system, in violation of labor discipline, dereliction of duty. 
3, unauthorized starting of machinery and equipment, unauthorized alterations, demolition, destruction, misappropriation of safety devices and equipment. 
From the available evidence material master, you should first pursue leadership responsibilities six reasons, the company decision-making, management possession: 1,2,5 (the company's May 16, 2006 a similar incident occurred, resulting in a handling personal injury), 6, according to our understanding, is more than 4 "Production safety law" stipulates that the production units must have safety conditions, must meet production safety. Did not have the safety conditions, the lack of production safety, according to the provisions of "Production Safety Law" shall not engage in production and business activities, such as the organization of production and business activities, production safety accident, the organization of production and business activities of decision-making, management should bear the primary responsibility . 
Employees should be investigated and responsibility of the person's three reasons, apparently unrelated to 2,3 bar and a Chinese, an illegal command first operation at risk should also be excluded, leaving the illegal operations. From the available evidence material disposal, the Company had no truck mounted poles rules, is unsystematic, forklift operator shall bear no responsibility. 
Second, the use of certain undocumented Chinese see China from the company posts a liability in the accident. 
China caused some undocumented posts, that stevedores common job accidents, should bear the responsibility, but objectively speaking their undocumented posts not necessarily associated with the cause (described later) between this accident, say a no-hua certificate for employment is not a fox standing problem, it should look at the circumstances under which he was undocumented posts. 
"Special equipment operator supervision and management measures" Chapter III "certificates and supervision and management" in Article 19: holders of "special equipment operator certificate" personnel must be approved by the employer's legal representative (responsible person) or its authorized person employed (hired) after use, within the scope of the project before the work permit. 
Article XX: The employer shall strengthen the management of special equipment and operating personnel job site, perform the following duties: 
(A) develop special equipment and procedures related to safety management system; 
(B) workers employed by the holder, and the establishment of special equipment operator manage files; 
(C) for operating personnel safety education and training; 
(D) ensure that certificates and by chapter operations; 
(E) to provide the necessary conditions for safe operation; 
(F) other obligations under. 
Article 21: Special Equipment Operators shall comply with the following provisions: 
Carry documents when (a) the job, and consciously accept the supervision and inspection of safety management and quality and technical supervision departments of the employer; 
(B) actively participated in special equipment safety education and safety training; 
(C) the strict implementation of the special equipment and procedures related to safety rules and regulations; 
(D) refuse illegal command; 
(Five) found that accidents or unsafe should be reported immediately to the on-site management personnel and units responsible person; 
(F) other relevant provisions. 
As can be seen from the above provisions of the company's decision-making, if not, the management of identity license, Hua certain is impossible without certificate, if it has the responsibility, then sorted according to their size should be the responsibility of the decision-making level to management, then is the operation layer. 
According to July 4, 1986 the Supreme People's Procuratorate spokesman on the "Penal Code Section 134 provisions on the main elements of a joint notice of the scope of the" made answer: corporate, business unit and the masses of workers cooperative economic organizations, self-employed households practitioners staff not trained nor technical training, security education has not been necessary, do not understand the rules and regulations, thus major accident occurs, the perpetrator assumes legal liability, should an accident of accidents and management organization, management persons directly responsible households liable. 
Third, from a relationship with Hua Wang of China in the job of a liability in the accident to see. 
Made four demands May 24, 2006 at the company's "5 • 16" accident analysis meeting (the company in charge of the person in charge of security officers, relevant management departments handling team personnel and all personnel to participate): 1, wear a helmet ; 2, forklift operator who obey the command of the car; 3 people on board with each other; 4, do a few bigger bulk of wood fixed poles. 
The first two controls which four required operations in the accident, Wang should be in a dominant position. If the job is illegal operations, it should be said that the common violations Wang, Hua a two, assuming that killed a third party, we believe that the responsibility is greater than a certain Wang Hua responsibility. 
This accident should be loading and unloading operations pole operations, not simply considered a forklift operations. From the two operations, the forklift operator's task is lifted pole to pole tank wagon cardinal, and pole position off the tank is stevedores task, not a pole big end slipped forklift operator tasks not blocked, but should is stevedores task Judging from the scene of the accident if Wang crowbar stand in bulk at the end or pole above the center of gravity, poles do not fall under the car, Wang's technology is not refined, improper disposal of responsibility can not let China a commitment. 
In summary, we believe that China is not suspected of a crime of major accidents.