這起發生在北京石景山區商場內的生產安全事故，揭露基層勞動環境中普遍存在的安全漏洞與管理失職問題。事件的核心人物是一名新入職的保潔員張某，他在沒有接受任何崗前培訓、也沒有取得特種設備駕駛資格的情況下，被指派駕駛清潔車（洗地機）進行工作。僅僅上崗十分鐘，一場嚴重的誤操作釀成悲劇，一名同事尉某因此墜入電梯井身亡。

根據於2025年7月發布的調查報告，這起事故發生於2025年5月1日早上8時10分。當時，山東潔朗保潔服務有限公司受託在石景山區一處商場進行日常清潔作業。令人震驚的是，事故發生的前一天（4月30日），該保潔公司才與商場的物業與房地產開發方簽署正式合同，合作從5月1日開始生效。也就是說，張某幾乎在「應聘後一小時」便被倉促上崗。

根據報告內容，張某於當天早上7時前往公司面試，8時便開始操作洗地機開展清潔工作。然而，他此前從未接觸過該型號的清潔車，對設備性能、操作方式與安全注意事項一無所知。約十分鐘後，因誤將油門當作煞車踩下，清潔車瞬間失控，將正在附近作業的同事尉某撞進電梯井。

事發後，現場傳出巨響，物業公司人員立刻趕到事發地點（B2層），隨即聯絡電梯維修人員前往B4層井道查看。救援人員在電梯井底部發現翻覆的洗地機，且確定有作業員被壓在車下。警方與消防部門迅速趕赴現場，9時10分左右成功將受害人尉某救出並送往北京大學首鋼醫院搶救，最終仍因傷勢過重搶救無效死亡。

令人不解的是，事故發生後，保潔主管並未立即報告或停止作業，反而要求肇事的張某「繼續清掃商場二層」，彷彿什麼事也沒發生。此舉被認為是嚴重違反安全管理規定與道德常識的行為。事後，商場方向死者家屬支付140萬元人民幣的賠償金，張某個人也另行賠償8萬元，雙方最終達成民事和解。然而，司法機關仍以涉嫌重大過失致人死亡罪，對張某提起公訴。

整起事件的直接經濟損失約為115萬元，但背後暴露的問題遠超金錢損害。報告指出，相關單位在用工管理、崗前培訓、設備安全審核及現場監督等多個環節均存在嚴重漏洞。特別是保潔公司違反安全生產法規，未對新員工進行基本培訓與操作考核，直接導致本可避免的悲劇。

這起事故在社會上引發廣泛討論。許多民眾批評企業為追求效率與節省成本，忽視最基本的安全規範，也凸顯出外包保潔行業的監管空白。專家呼籲，類似服務企業應建立完善的「崗前培訓與安全審核制度」，並由物業管理方負責聯合監督，以防此類悲劇重演。

這起「5·1」石景山商場墜井事故，最終成為北京市應急管理局列為典型生產安全事故案例之一，不僅是對勞動安全體系的警示，更揭示當前低薪、高風險崗位中，人命在效率與成本之間被忽視的殘酷現實。

This tragic workplace accident in Beijing’s Shijingshan District has drawn nationwide attention, exposing severe safety management failures and negligence in China’s cleaning and property service industry.

The incident involved a newly hired cleaner, Zhang, who, despite having no pre-job safety training and no special vehicle operating license, was assigned to drive a floor-cleaning machine in a shopping mall. Within just ten minutes of starting his first shift, he accidentally struck a co-worker, Wei, causing the victim to fall down an elevator shaft to his death.

According to an investigation report released in July 2025 by the Shijingshan District Emergency Management Bureau, the fatal accident occurred at 8:10 a.m. on May 1, 2025. On that day, Shandong Jielang Cleaning Services Co., Ltd. was carrying out daily cleaning operations at a mall in Shijingshan. What makes the case even more alarming is that the cleaning contract had only been signed the previous day (April 30) between the real estate developer, the property management company, and the cleaning firm. The contract officially took effect on May 1—the very day of the accident.

Zhang had applied for the job that morning at 7:00 a.m., and was put to work just one hour later. He had never used that particular model of floor-cleaning machine before. At around 8:10 a.m., due to mistaking the accelerator for the brake, the machine suddenly accelerated and rammed into his co-worker Wei, who was working nearby. Wei fell into the elevator shaft.

Hearing a loud crash, property management personnel rushed to the scene on B2 level and immediately contacted elevator maintenance workers to check the B4 elevator shaft. Rescuers discovered the overturned cleaning machine at the bottom of the shaft and confirmed that a worker was trapped underneath. Emergency services were called—120 (medical), 110 (police), and 119 (fire rescue)—and by 9:10 a.m., the victim was retrieved and taken to Peking University Shougang Hospital. Despite emergency treatment, Wei was pronounced dead due to severe injuries.

Incredibly, instead of reporting the incident or suspending operations, the cleaning supervisor instructed Zhang to continue cleaning the mall’s second floor after the fatal accident occurred. This shocking decision later became a key point of public outrage, seen as a blatant violation of workplace ethics and safety regulations.

Afterward, the mall compensated the victim’s family with RMB 1.4 million, and Zhang personally paid RMB 80,000. Both parties reached a civil settlement. However, Zhang was still prosecuted for criminal negligence resulting in death. The accident caused a direct economic loss of approximately RMB 1.15 million, according to official estimates.

Investigators concluded that the companies involved had multiple layers of fault. The cleaning company had failed to provide mandatory safety training, perform operational assessments, or verify qualifications before assigning Zhang to operate heavy cleaning machinery. The property management side also failed to supervise on-site safety and respond properly after the incident.

This “May 1 Shijingshan Mall Elevator Shaft Accident” has since been listed by the Beijing Emergency Management Bureau as a typical case of workplace safety negligence. It serves as a grim reminder of the systemic issues in outsourced cleaning and low-wage labor sectors—where companies often prioritize speed and cost savings over human safety. Experts and labor advocates have called for stricter enforcement of pre-job training, licensing requirements, and joint supervision mechanisms to prevent similar tragedies in the future.

Ultimately, this case has become a stark symbol of how, in the pursuit of efficiency, the lives of front-line workers can be tragically overlooked—turning what should have been a routine day of cleaning into a fatal lesson in negligence.