【Lead Attorney: Wang Tengfeng】[2] In August 2006, Wang Tengfeng, director of Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm, took on a case involving a claim for damages from the spontaneous combustion of an Audi A6 sedan. The case originated as follows:

[3] On December 20, 2003, Mr. Li purchased an Audi A6 sedan from a Shenzhen auto trading company, paying a total of 377,500 yuan for the vehicle and purchase tax. On March 20, 2006, the Audi was involved in a rear-end traffic accident on Shennan Middle Road. After the insurance company assessed the damage, it designated a repair company in Shenzhen for repairs. On April 3, Mr. Li retrieved the repaired vehicle. On June 16 of the same year, Mr. Li was driving the Audi near Xili Railway Station in Shenzhen when, under normal driving conditions, the front hood suddenly caught fire, and the flames quickly destroyed the vehicle. After the incident, traffic police and fire departments investigated and determined that the vehicle had been destroyed by spontaneous combustion, ruling out human causes, with the cause of the fire unknown. After the incident, the insurance company compensated most of the losses, but Mr. Li still suffered a loss of 147,000 yuan. He believed this loss should be borne by the vehicle's seller and repairer. After failed negotiations, he entrusted Attorney Wang to seek judicial recourse to protect his rights.

[4] First Instance Debate

[5] After accepting the case, Wang Tengfeng, based on relevant laws and facts, determined that the car owner should not be held responsible for the spontaneous combustion of the sedan. He filed a lawsuit with the Nanshan District Court, requesting that the court order the seller and repairer to compensate the car owner for economic losses of 147,000 yuan. On November 7, 2006, the Xili Court of Nanshan District Court heard the case, with both sides engaging in intense debate.

[6] Attorney Wang Tengfeng argued that the Shenzhen auto trading company, as the dealer, should bear product contract liability and quality assurance obligations for the Audi car it sold, ensuring the vehicle had the performance for normal use. The spontaneous combustion and severe destruction of the vehicle under normal driving conditions indicated serious quality defects in the car sold by the company. Attorney Wang also provided multiple reports from across the country about 2003-model Audi A6 vehicles spontaneously combusting due to design defects, along with evidence recognized by experts. He argued that according to the regulations of relevant State Council departments on defective automobile product recalls, vehicles with quality defects should be recalled within 10 years of delivery. Additionally, the regulations stipulate that even if manufacturers and dealers recall defective vehicles, they must still bear responsibility for losses and damages already incurred by car owners. The Product Quality Law also states that in cases of damage caused by product defects, the burden of proof falls on the producer or seller, except in three specific circumstances. Since the vehicle had undergone repairs before the incident and the area of spontaneous combustion had been disassembled and reassembled, Attorney Wang suggested that improper repairs might have caused the fire. The repair company claimed to be an authorized service station for FAW Audi, but it was understood that the company lacked the qualifications to repair Audis, and its repair techniques might have been flawed, leading to incorrect wiring connections or improper part assembly that caused the fire. Excluding external human factors, the seller and repairer should jointly bear responsibility for compensating the losses.

The automobile trading company argued that the vehicle sold to Mr. Li was of qualified quality, as it not only had a manufacturer's certificate of conformity but also underwent pre-sale inspection by the seller as required before being handed over to Mr. Li, and the vehicle met warranty conditions during the warranty period. The original certificate of conformity is essential for registering and licensing each motor vehicle with the public security vehicle management department; otherwise, the department would not permit registration and licensing. The fact that the vehicle in question successfully obtained relevant documents and operated normally for over two years indicates its high quality. Mr. Li had used the vehicle for more than two years, exceeding the one-year warranty period, during which it was involved in a major traffic accident and repaired by another repair company. Therefore, the vehicle's spontaneous combustion and destruction are unrelated to the seller.

The automobile repair company stated that it is indeed not an authorized Audi repair point and did not explicitly or implicitly indicate to Mr. Li that it was an authorized repair point. However, lacking authorization does not mean it cannot repair Audi vehicles, as it is a qualified automobile repair company with the technical capability to repair Audis. Moreover, Mr. Li has no evidence proving that the vehicle's spontaneous combustion was caused by improper repairs by the company.

In response to the trading company's defense of qualified quality, Attorney Wang refuted, stating that the plaintiff's vehicle spontaneously combusted and was severely burned during normal driving, indicating that the defendant's sold vehicle had a serious safety hazard due to a quality defect, not an ordinary product quality issue. It should be recalled or compensated under the "Defective Automobile Product Recall Management Regulations." Regarding the defense that the vehicle had exceeded the one-year warranty period, Attorney Wang argued that this applies to ordinary quality dispute limits set for general parts maintenance and repair, not to the safety usage period. Quality defects in the vehicle should not be bound by this. Moreover, the plaintiff's new car had only been used for two and a half years before the major safety accident of spontaneous combustion and destruction, which did not exceed the statutory safety period.

In response to the repair company's defense, Attorney Wang refuted, stating that the defendant and plaintiff had a contract for work. The purpose of vehicle repair is to restore it to its original condition and normal performance for safe use. The fact that the vehicle spontaneously combusted one month after repair proves that the defendant's work quality was substandard, and it should bear legal liability.

Filing an appeal

The following month, the Nanshan District Court issued a judgment in this case: dismissing the plaintiff's lawsuit. Attorney Wang continued to accept the plaintiff's commission and filed an appeal in accordance with the law. In response to errors in the judgment's findings of fact and application of law, Attorney Wang made forceful refutations point by point.

1. This case is a product quality defect tort dispute, not an ordinary individual product quality defect tort dispute. The court of first instance turned a blind eye to this and mechanically demanded that the appellant provide evidence of individual product quality defects. As for the professional authoritative determination of "defects," it can only be made by the manufacturer itself or relevant national regulatory agencies (as stipulated in the "Regulations on the Recall of Defective Automobile Products"). The manufacturer and seller should bear the responsibility for self-determination and burden of proof. The consumer (the appellant, the car owner) is only responsible for proving the facts of damage and consumption. In this regard, the appellant has already submitted legal evidence of car purchase and the vehicle's spontaneous combustion damage to the court of first instance. As for the court of first instance's assertion that the vehicle sold by the first appellee to the appellant was of qualified quality and had been accepted by the appellant, this clearly does not apply to complex cars that require operation to detect and verify whether there are serious quality defects. Otherwise, the state would not need to formulate the "Regulations on the Recall of Defective Automobile Products" in accordance with international norms. In this regard, Attorney Wang also appended a new report from the "Private Economy News" dated December 12, 2006, titled "Audi A6 CVT Design Defect Lays Numerous Repair Traps," as supporting evidence.

2. The second appellee does not have the qualification for authorized Audi A6 maintenance. The court of first instance insisted that the appellant had no evidence to prove the existence of the appellee's fault, stubbornly believing that anyone who can repair cars can repair Audis. This is clearly a subjective assumption ignoring the objective reality of technical differences in product maintenance and is illogical.

3. Since this case is a dispute over product quality infringement involving defective Audi A6 cars, the first appellee should be subject to specific provisions of China's "Product Quality Law" and the "Regulations on the Recall of Defective Automobile Products." The second appellee should be subject to the relevant provisions of China's "Regulations on Motor Vehicle Maintenance Management." Given that the physical evidence in this case has been destroyed by spontaneous combustion, and the public security and fire departments have ruled out external human causes, even if the court of first instance could not ascertain the exact cause (i.e., could not determine which of the two appellees had a sole causal relationship with the vehicle's spontaneous combustion damage), it should have made a fair and reasonable judgment based on the principle of fairness stipulated in Article 4 of China's "General Principles of Civil Law." The court of first instance erroneously identified this defective automobile product quality infringement dispute as an ordinary individual car quality defect infringement dispute and consequently applied the wrong legal provisions to render an erroneous judgment. The appellant expresses strong dissatisfaction. The appellant respectfully requests the court of second instance to revoke the erroneous judgment of the first instance and amend it to support the appellant's reasonable claims.

4. Reflections on the Loss of Claims in Both Trial Judgments

5. After the court of second instance held a hearing, it issued a judgment on October 18, 2007. The court of second instance held that the facts found in the first-instance judgment were clear and accurate, and it confirmed them.

6. After the "Tort Liability Law of the People's Republic of China" was promulgated on December 26, 2009, Attorney Wang Tengfeng reflected on this case in light of the new law's provisions on defective products. He believed that the argument presented during the agency, that manufacturers and sellers should bear responsibility for the spontaneous combustion of cars, was correct and creatively forward-looking.

The Tort Liability Law stipulates: "Article 45: If a product defect endangers the personal or property safety of others, the infringed party has the right to request the producer or seller to assume tort liability such as removing the obstruction or eliminating the danger.

Article 46: If a defect is discovered after the product has been put into circulation, the producer or seller shall promptly take remedial measures such as warnings or recalls. If they fail to take timely remedial measures or the measures are inadequate, causing damage, they shall assume tort liability.

Article 47: If a producer or seller knowingly produces or sells a product with a defect, causing death or serious health damage to others, the infringed party has the right to request corresponding punitive damages."

Attorney Wang Tengfeng believes: The enactment and implementation of the Tort Liability Law is a landmark and benevolent act, marking a leap forward in the protection of people's livelihood and rights in our country. The above provisions not only cover potential tort damages in various areas of people's livelihood but also explicitly introduce the internationally advanced "punitive damages" rule. This rule strengthens the civil liability of producers and sellers, enhances the protection of consumers' livelihood rights, and will greatly improve integrity and law-abiding awareness in the production and consumption sectors, promote a civilized and healthy economic environment, and maintain social order and harmony! If the aforementioned case occurred today, faced with such "clear" and "humanized" legal provisions, no court would dare to wrongly rule against the plaintiff! Several years ago, due to the lack of directly applicable legal provisions, although the lawyer creatively argued with sufficient facts, law, and reason, the judge praised the case for broadening horizons and knowledge but still limited by Chinese characteristics, failing to support the plaintiff's victory. However, the creative application of law by both the attorney and the judge urgently needs to be advocated and learned. No great lawyer or judge could ever be formed by those who are rigid and stagnant!

(Wang Tengfeng's Commentary)

Zhiming Office

November 3, 2010