Nanfang'ao Bridge Collapse Caused 6 Deaths, 4 Companies Still Sentenced in Second Trial, 2 Acquitted
The second trial ruling on the Nanfang'ao Bridge collapse in Yilan, which killed six fishermen, upheld the conviction of four companies for negligent homicide, while two managers were acquitted. The court found the fundamental cause to be engineering flaws leading to severe corrosion due to water accumulation and unsuitable material use.
📋 Article Processing Timeline
- 📰 Published: April 30, 2026 at 15:12
- 🔍 Collected: April 30, 2026 at 15:32 (19 min after Published)
- 🤖 AI Analyzed: April 30, 2026 at 16:04 (32 min after Collected)
CENTRAL NEWS AGENCY
(Central News Agency reporter Hsieh Chun-lin, Taipei, 30th) The Nanfang'ao cross-harbor bridge in Yilan collapsed in 2019, causing the deaths of six fishermen. The first trial sentenced four companies to 1 year 6 months to 2 years imprisonment for negligent homicide. The second trial today upheld the original verdict, with only site supervisor Wu receiving a 5-year suspended sentence and required to pay NT$250,000 to the public treasury.
The defendants in the case included former managers Fang and Huang from the engineering section of Su'ao Port Operations Office, contractor Lin (person in charge of the cross-harbor bridge project), site supervisor Wu, subcontractor Bian (vice general manager), and supervising manufacturer Chen (site supervisor), a total of six people. Among them, managers Fang and Huang have been acquitted in all trials.
Regarding the guilty verdicts for the four companies, the Taiwan High Court's press release stated that the post-disaster wreckage indicated the fundamental cause of the Nanfang'ao Bridge collapse included bowl-shaped anchor seat stiffener plates facing upwards, lacking drainage holes or guide functions, leading to water accumulation. The steel strands lacked proper protection from anchor sleeves and anchor heads, and trumpet-shaped waterproof covers were not installed.
The collegiate panel stated that, based on common sense, prolonged direct contact between steel strands and anchor heads with seeping saline water would inevitably cause severe corrosion at these points, leading to eventual fracture and collapse; even regular maintenance and inspection would only delay the timeline of collapse and would not eliminate the engineering defects of the Nanfang'ao Bridge.
Furthermore, the supervising manufacturer Chen knew that the slings and connectors selected by Liyong Company were not the products specified in the construction manual, and there was no issue of major material change. There was no reason not to use the four specified products in the construction manual but to use equivalent products instead, indicating an intention and act of cutting corners immediately after the contract was signed.
According to the press release, the High Court held 12 trial sessions over 13 months, from November 26, 2024, to January 6, 2025. Expert witnesses, acceptance personnel, and as-built drawing personnel were questioned, but it was still impossible to overturn the reality presented by the rusted and collapsed wreckage of the Nanfang'ao Bridge and the fact that it did not match the as-built drawings. The anchor system was in a perpetually damp and corrosive environment, ultimately leading to the engineering defects of corrosion, fracture, and collapse. This confirms the negligence of the four companies in terms of administration, capital supervision, and on-site supervision results.
The High Court collegiate panel believes that acceptance is merely a necessary act to complete the engineering contract; passing acceptance does not mean there are no defects in the project, nor does it preclude negligence during the acceptance process. The argument by the four companies that they were not negligent because the project passed acceptance was deemed insufficient.
The press release stated that the victims' damages have all been compensated by national agencies, and the port authority is seeking subrogation claims against the defendants, with litigation ongoing. The negligent injury part has been withdrawn. Considering that site supervisor Wu finally confessed to the crime before the conclusion of oral arguments, he was granted a suspended sentence with conditions. The other three defendants, after two expert appraisals by national-level professional institutions, still denied negligence and attempted to take chances; their requests for suspended sentences were all rejected.
Regarding the acquittal of managers Fang and Huang, the collegiate panel stated that the original judgment had thoroughly elaborated that, from the completion of the Nanfang'ao Bridge to its collapse, neither the laws at the time nor the content of the entrusted maintenance contract were sufficient to determine that managers Fang and Huang constituted a crime. The prosecutor's appeal did not present new corroborating evidence and merely offered different interpretations of various laws; therefore, their appeal was deemed groundless and should be dismissed. This case is appealable. (Editor: Lee Hsi-chang) 1150430
Choose to stand with facts; every donation protects the power of press freedom.
Download the Central News Agency "First-hand News" APP to stay updated.
The text, images, and audio/video on this website may not be reproduced, publicly broadcast, or publicly transmitted and utilized without authorization.
(Central News Agency reporter Hsieh Chun-lin, Taipei, 30th) The Nanfang'ao cross-harbor bridge in Yilan collapsed in 2019, causing the deaths of six fishermen. The first trial sentenced four companies to 1 year 6 months to 2 years imprisonment for negligent homicide. The second trial today upheld the original verdict, with only site supervisor Wu receiving a 5-year suspended sentence and required to pay NT$250,000 to the public treasury.
The defendants in the case included former managers Fang and Huang from the engineering section of Su'ao Port Operations Office, contractor Lin (person in charge of the cross-harbor bridge project), site supervisor Wu, subcontractor Bian (vice general manager), and supervising manufacturer Chen (site supervisor), a total of six people. Among them, managers Fang and Huang have been acquitted in all trials.
Regarding the guilty verdicts for the four companies, the Taiwan High Court's press release stated that the post-disaster wreckage indicated the fundamental cause of the Nanfang'ao Bridge collapse included bowl-shaped anchor seat stiffener plates facing upwards, lacking drainage holes or guide functions, leading to water accumulation. The steel strands lacked proper protection from anchor sleeves and anchor heads, and trumpet-shaped waterproof covers were not installed.
The collegiate panel stated that, based on common sense, prolonged direct contact between steel strands and anchor heads with seeping saline water would inevitably cause severe corrosion at these points, leading to eventual fracture and collapse; even regular maintenance and inspection would only delay the timeline of collapse and would not eliminate the engineering defects of the Nanfang'ao Bridge.
Furthermore, the supervising manufacturer Chen knew that the slings and connectors selected by Liyong Company were not the products specified in the construction manual, and there was no issue of major material change. There was no reason not to use the four specified products in the construction manual but to use equivalent products instead, indicating an intention and act of cutting corners immediately after the contract was signed.
According to the press release, the High Court held 12 trial sessions over 13 months, from November 26, 2024, to January 6, 2025. Expert witnesses, acceptance personnel, and as-built drawing personnel were questioned, but it was still impossible to overturn the reality presented by the rusted and collapsed wreckage of the Nanfang'ao Bridge and the fact that it did not match the as-built drawings. The anchor system was in a perpetually damp and corrosive environment, ultimately leading to the engineering defects of corrosion, fracture, and collapse. This confirms the negligence of the four companies in terms of administration, capital supervision, and on-site supervision results.
The High Court collegiate panel believes that acceptance is merely a necessary act to complete the engineering contract; passing acceptance does not mean there are no defects in the project, nor does it preclude negligence during the acceptance process. The argument by the four companies that they were not negligent because the project passed acceptance was deemed insufficient.
The press release stated that the victims' damages have all been compensated by national agencies, and the port authority is seeking subrogation claims against the defendants, with litigation ongoing. The negligent injury part has been withdrawn. Considering that site supervisor Wu finally confessed to the crime before the conclusion of oral arguments, he was granted a suspended sentence with conditions. The other three defendants, after two expert appraisals by national-level professional institutions, still denied negligence and attempted to take chances; their requests for suspended sentences were all rejected.
Regarding the acquittal of managers Fang and Huang, the collegiate panel stated that the original judgment had thoroughly elaborated that, from the completion of the Nanfang'ao Bridge to its collapse, neither the laws at the time nor the content of the entrusted maintenance contract were sufficient to determine that managers Fang and Huang constituted a crime. The prosecutor's appeal did not present new corroborating evidence and merely offered different interpretations of various laws; therefore, their appeal was deemed groundless and should be dismissed. This case is appealable. (Editor: Lee Hsi-chang) 1150430
Choose to stand with facts; every donation protects the power of press freedom.
Download the Central News Agency "First-hand News" APP to stay updated.
The text, images, and audio/video on this website may not be reproduced, publicly broadcast, or publicly transmitted and utilized without authorization.