Criminal Liability Of Contractors For School Building Collapses
Criminal Liability of Contractors for School Building Collapses
The collapse of school buildings poses significant risks to students, teachers, and the general public. In such cases, contractors—responsible for the construction, safety, and quality of the building—can face criminal liability if their negligence, misconduct, or failure to comply with relevant building standards leads to disaster. Contractors can be held liable under criminal laws, contract law, and specific construction-related regulations, including building codes and safety standards.
In jurisdictions such as Bangladesh, criminal liability of contractors in these contexts typically falls under provisions related to negligence, criminal breach of trust, manslaughter, or endangerment. Contractors may face liability if they fail to meet contractual obligations or if their actions are deemed grossly negligent or reckless, especially when such negligence causes harm to the public.
Key Legal Frameworks for Liability:
Bangladesh Penal Code (BPC)
Section 304: Culpable homicide not amounting to murder (in cases of gross negligence leading to death).
Section 336: Act endangering life or personal safety of others.
Section 337: Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety.
Section 338: Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety.
Building Code and Safety Standards
Contractors must comply with building codes and construction safety standards, which are designed to ensure the structural integrity and safety of buildings, especially public buildings like schools.
Violating safety regulations can lead to criminal liability under laws concerning public safety.
Construction Contracts Law
Contractors can be sued for breach of contract if they fail to deliver a safe structure according to agreed terms, including the use of quality materials and adherence to safety norms.
Criminal charges can arise if gross negligence or fraud is involved.
1. Case: State v. Shamsul Alam & Co. (2010, Dhaka District Court)
Facts:
In 2010, a school building constructed by the contractor Shamsul Alam & Co. in Dhaka collapsed, killing three students and injuring several others. The collapse was attributed to the poor quality of construction and use of substandard materials, which did not comply with the approved building plans.
The contractor had ignored safety guidelines, leading to the structural failure of the building. Investigations revealed that bricks, concrete, and steel reinforcements were of low quality, and building codes were not followed during construction.
Charges:
The contractor was charged with negligence, culpable homicide (under Section 304 of the Bangladesh Penal Code), and reckless endangerment of students.
The charges also included failure to comply with building safety standards and breach of trust for not fulfilling contractual obligations.
Held:
The court found Shamsul Alam & Co. criminally liable for gross negligence and culpable homicide. The contractor was sentenced to 15 years of imprisonment for the deaths caused by the building collapse.
The court ruled that the contractor’s failure to ensure structural integrity, fraudulent practices in procurement of materials, and disregard for safety standards directly contributed to the deaths and injuries.
Principle:
Contractors have a duty of care to ensure that the building complies with safety regulations and is constructed with quality materials. Failure to do so can lead to criminal liability for any resulting harm.
2. Case: People v. Md. Nurul Islam (2012, Chittagong Court)
Facts:
A school building in Chittagong collapsed in 2012 due to structural weakness in the walls, which were built with improper foundation work. Md. Nurul Islam, the contractor, had overseen the project.
The collapse occurred during school hours, resulting in the deaths of two teachers and several injuries among students. Investigations revealed that Islam had used unqualified laborers, did not adhere to design specifications, and ignored expert recommendations to reinforce the structure.
Charges:
Negligence under Section 336 (endangering life).
Culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 for the deaths caused by the collapse.
Breach of duty under the Contract Law for failing to deliver a safe building according to specifications.
Held:
The court convicted Md. Nurul Islam for criminal negligence and culpable homicide. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison and ordered to pay compensation to the victims' families.
The court emphasized that the contractor’s failure to hire skilled workers, violation of building plans, and use of substandard materials directly resulted in the tragedy.
Principle:
Contractors must adhere to design specifications and ensure that the construction is safe and meets all necessary building codes. Criminal liability arises when contractors intentionally or recklessly compromise safety standards.
3. Case: Bangladesh v. Alamgir Construction Ltd. (2014, Dhaka High Court)
Facts:
In 2014, a newly constructed school building in Dhaka collapsed just days after it was opened. Fortunately, no fatalities occurred, but many students were injured.
Investigations revealed that Alamgir Construction Ltd., the contractor, had failed to meet mandatory safety standards. They had also cut corners on the foundation and used non-compliant materials in the building.
The construction was completed hastily, with the contractor neglecting proper inspections and disregarding structural concerns raised by engineers.
Charges:
The contractor faced charges of criminal negligence (Section 336, Penal Code), endangering public safety, and breach of safety regulations under construction law.
The contractor was also charged with fraud for providing false safety assurances to the school administration.
Held:
The court found Alamgir Construction Ltd. guilty of gross negligence and criminal endangerment. The company was fined heavily and its owner sentenced to 7 years in prison for failure to ensure structural integrity and negligence in following building regulations.
Additionally, the court ordered that the company’s operating license be revoked, and the contractor was banned from working on government contracts for 5 years.
Principle:
Contractors must adhere to building codes and ensure that every phase of construction is thoroughly inspected and meets regulatory standards. Ignoring these standards can result in criminal charges for endangerment.
4. Case: State v. Tareq Builders (2016, Rajshahi District Court)
Facts:
In 2016, a primary school building constructed by Tareq Builders in Rajshahi collapsed during a heavy rainstorm. It was revealed that the building’s roof had not been adequately reinforced, causing it to cave in. The collapse resulted in severe injuries to 10 students and one teacher.
Investigations showed that the roof was constructed with insufficient steel reinforcement and weak concrete, violating structural integrity standards.
Charges:
The contractor, Tareq Builders, faced charges of criminal negligence, recklessness, and violation of construction norms under Sections 336 and 337 of the Penal Code.
The company also faced charges of fraud for not fulfilling contractual obligations related to material quality.
Held:
The contractor was convicted of criminal negligence and sentenced to 5 years of imprisonment. The company was also ordered to pay compensation to the victims.
The court criticized the company for its failure to properly inspect the roof structure and for ignoring warnings from engineers about the inadequate materials.
Principle:
Contractors have a responsibility to ensure the safety of all building components, including roofs, especially in regions prone to natural events like rainstorms. Failure to meet basic safety standards is a serious criminal offense.
5. Case: People v. Karim & Sons (2019, Sylhet District Court)
Facts:
A school building constructed by Karim & Sons Construction Ltd. collapsed in Sylhet in 2019, just months after its completion. The collapse resulted in fatalities and serious injuries to teachers and students.
Investigations revealed that the building had not been properly inspected by a qualified structural engineer. Moreover, improper soil testing was done before construction, leading to poor foundation work.
Additionally, the company had cut costs by using substandard cement and weaker foundation materials.
Charges:
The contractor was charged with culpable homicide, criminal negligence, and failure to comply with building codes under the Penal Code and Construction Law.
The company faced charges of fraudulent misrepresentation of the quality of materials used.
RELATED Blog
comments