A Dormitory Fire Killed 13 Primary School Pupils: Why Was the Teacher Who Shouted “Run” Also Sentenced to Six Years?

The short answer

• The offence charged was “major safety accidents involving educational facilities” under Article 138 of the Criminal Law, not negligent arson. It pursues not “whoever started the fire” but the directly responsible persons who knew school buildings or educational facilities were dangerous and neither fixed nor reported the danger, leading to major casualties.
• Who is “directly responsible” depends on duties, not rank. This teacher was living in boys’ dormitory 305 that night and had dorm-supervision duties, so the court held her responsible for the dormitory hazards; with only class-teacher duties and absent from the dorm, she generally would not have committed this offence.
• The sentence has two statutory bands: one or more deaths means up to three years; three or more deaths with main responsibility is “especially serious consequences”, three to seven years. Thirteen deaths fell in the second band, and six years is within it.
• “Waking pupils and helping fight the fire afterwards” doesn’t avoid the offence; it is only a mitigating factor. What decides guilt is whether hazards were fixed or reported before the fire.

1. The facts found by the court

According to Xinhua, at about 22:45 on 19 January 2024, a fire broke out in boys’ dormitory 305 for third-graders at Yingcai School in Yanshanpu community, Dushu town, Fangcheng County, Henan; 33 pupils were sleeping there that night. The fire service received the alarm about 15 minutes later, and the fire killed 13 primary school pupils and injured 4 (1 seriously, 3 slightly). On 19 December 2025, the Fangcheng County People’s Court held a public first-instance trial and delivered judgment in court.

The three defendants and their sentences: the school’s actual controller Li Yu, seven years; the principal Xu Xiangyang, six years and six months; and Jia Xia, the third-grade class teacher who was also dorm supervisor for boys’ dormitory 305, six years. All three were barred from working in education-related occupations for five years after completing their sentences. (as reported by Xinhua)

The hazards the judgment linked to liability included: the school operated without a Registration Certificate for Private Non-Enterprise Units; the roof water tank and indoor fire hydrants of the building had no water; the standalone smoke alarms had no power and failed to sound; dormitory 305 was severely overcrowded; and pupils were not effectively evacuated. According to judgment content disclosed by the media, Jia also admitted that in autumn 2023 she had blocked the dormitory’s east emergency exit with beds and did not report it to school leaders.

2. Why the charge was “major safety accidents involving educational facilities”

Article 138 of the Criminal Law: “Whoever knows that school buildings or educational and teaching facilities are dangerous but fails to take measures or report promptly, causing a major casualty accident, shall, as to the directly responsible persons, be sentenced to up to three years’ imprisonment or criminal detention; where the consequences are especially serious, to three to seven years.”

So it differs from the intuition that “whoever started the fire is responsible”. A pupil burning a loose thread on his trousers with a lighter caused the fire, but Article 138 pursues those responsible for the safety of school buildings and dormitories: the hazards were obvious, and they neither fixed nor reported them. That is why all three were convicted of the same offence.

3. Who is a “directly responsible person”: duties, not rank

Of the three defendants, the one people found hardest to understand was the teacher: she wasn’t the owner or the principal — why six years?

The answer is her other role. According to the facts found, she lived in boys’ dormitory 305 and served as dorm supervisor, with direct responsibility for the safety of the pupils sleeping there. Media commentary on the judgment noted that the conviction rested on her duties as dorm supervisor, not her role as class teacher; had she been only a class teacher absent from the dormitory, she generally wouldn’t have committed this offence.

According to judgment content disclosed by the media, the prosecution also alleged that she did not immediately call the fire service or fight the fire and did not evacuate pupils promptly. (media reporting, not statutory text)

4. How many years for 13 lives? The sentencing range is calculated

Article 138 has two bands, and what counts as “especially serious consequences” is quantified by the Supreme People’s Court and Supreme People’s Procuratorate Interpretation on Criminal Cases Endangering Production Safety (法释〔2015〕22号):

• Conduct under Article 138 causing one or more deaths is a “major casualty accident”, punishable by up to three years’ imprisonment or criminal detention (Art. 6(4)).
• Causing three or more deaths or ten or more serious injuries, with main responsibility for the accident, is punishable by three to seven years (Art. 7(3)).

Here 13 pupils died and 1 was seriously injured, placing the case in the three-to-seven-year band. Li Yu, as actual controller and principal manager, got seven years — the top of the band; the principal six and a half; the dorm supervisor six. According to judgment content disclosed by the media, the court accepted that Jia confessed truthfully, pleaded guilty and bore relatively less responsibility than Li and Xu, and gave her a lighter sentence — six years is already the reduced result within the three-to-seven range. (lawyer’s summary)

Another easily overlooked penalty: the five-year ban on education-related occupations after the sentences. The basis is Article 37-1 of the Criminal Law: where someone is sentenced for a crime committed by taking advantage of their occupation or in breach of specific occupational duties, the court may bar them from the occupation for three to five years from completing the sentence or parole. (excerpt)

5. Why “shouting at pupils to get up” doesn’t avoid liability

Many ask: she woke the pupils to flee and helped fight the fire — why doesn’t that offset her responsibility? Two points need separating. First, the offence looks at prior omission: overcrowding, unpowered alarms, empty hydrants and a blocked exit existed long before the fire, and the chance to fix or report them had been used up; shouting and fighting the fire afterwards can’t undo that the element of “knowing the danger but not taking measures or reporting promptly” was already met. (lawyer’s summary)

Second, conduct afterwards affects sentencing, and is an expressly listed mitigating factor. Article 13 of the interpretation provides that actively organising or taking part in rescue after an accident, actively cooperating with the investigation or proactively compensating losses may be discretionarily mitigated (excerpt; it applies to offences under Articles 132, 134–139-1 of the Criminal Law). The court did find that she pleaded guilty and bore less responsibility than the other two defendants, and mitigated accordingly. (lawyer’s summary)

The claim online that “she saved more than a hundred pupils” also needs clarifying: many pupils were indeed evacuated, but according to judgment content disclosed by the media, one pupil testified that she sent a pupil who had already escaped back into the fire to call others, and he was burned as a result; she also admitted she did not enter dormitory 305 to rescue trapped pupils (details from media reports; the judgment prevails).

6. Would an ordinary class teacher be liable?

The offence targets “directly responsible persons” — the test is whether one has safety-management duties, not whether one is a teacher. (lawyer’s summary)

• Dormitory-management duties, present that night, knew of hazards and neither fixed nor reported them — the heaviest responsibility, as in this case.
• Teaching duties only, not responsible for accommodation or facility safety, absent at the time — generally not this offence; other faults may lead to other liability.
• School founders and actual controllers — ultimately responsible for school conditions and safety investment; given the heaviest sentence in this case.
• Hazards in school buildings, fire safety or overcrowding can be reported to the education authority and the fire and rescue service; unlicensed schooling can also be reported to the civil affairs authority.

7. Where compensation comes from and what parents can do

Article 1199 of the Civil Code: where a person without civil capacity suffers personal injury while studying or living at a kindergarten, school or other educational institution, the institution bears tort liability, unless it can prove it fulfilled its education and management duties. Primary school pupils lack civil capacity, so the school must prove it fulfilled its duties or be liable. (lawyer’s summary)

According to Xinhua, the incidental civil plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed because they had already been compensated lawfully after the fire — compensation was resolved before judgment, so the incidental civil part was not adjudicated again.

If parents believe compensation was inadequate, or find new hazards not being addressed, they can in practice keep fee receipts, enrolment agreements and photos of hazards; demand rectification in writing from the school and education authority; and bring a separate civil claim for compensation.

Final thoughts

Passages marked as quoted are statutory or interpretive text; those marked as lawyer’s summary are my analysis of the elements and reasoning. The facts come from Xinhua reporting and media disclosures of the first-instance judgment; the judgment and official notices prevail on details. The simplest lesson of this case: responsibility for safety accidents is often written before the accident happens. Overcrowded dormitories, dead alarms, blocked exits — if anyone had clearly demanded rectification at any one of these points, the chain of liability might have been broken. If you face questions on school safety, liability for safety accidents or criminal defense, contact Wang Xin: phone +86 186-0113-9509, WeChat wang223040.

Source: Xinhua, “Verdict in Henan Fangcheng Yingcai School fire: school founder and two others sentenced” (19 December 2025), original on news.cn (Chinese).

This is an English edition of Wang Xin’s original Chinese article, 宿舍起火13名小学生遇难：喊学生快跑的宿管老师，为什么也被判6年？. It explains the law of the People’s Republic of China in general terms and is not legal advice for any particular case; outcomes depend on the specific facts and on how local authorities apply the rules.