[3] Producers and sellers should bear responsibility for car spontaneous combustion — Reflections on a lawsuit for compensation for car spontaneous combustion damage
[Lead Attorney: Zhiming Law Firm]In August 2006, Zhiming lawyer, the director of Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm, accepted a case involving a claim for damages arising from the spontaneous combustion of an Audi A6 sedan. The background of the case is as follows:
On December 20, 2003, Mr. Li purchased an Audi A6 sedan from an automobile trading company in Shenzhen, paying a total of 377,500 yuan for the purchase price and vehicle purchase tax. On March 20, 2006, this 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 to repair the vehicle. On April 3, Mr. Li picked up the repaired vehicle. On June 16 of the same year, Mr. Li drove the Audi to a location near Xili Railway Station in Shenzhen. While driving normally, the front hood suddenly caught fire, and the vehicle was destroyed by the blaze in a short time. After the incident, the traffic police and fire department examined and determined that Mr. Li's vehicle had been destroyed by spontaneous combustion, human causes were ruled out, and the cause of the fire was unknown. After the incident, the insurance company compensated the majority of the amount, but Mr. Li still suffered a loss of 147,000 yuan. He believed that this loss should be borne by the vehicle dealer and repairer. After negotiations failed, he entrusted Zhiming Law Firm to safeguard his rights and interests through judicial channels.
[4] First Instance Debate
After accepting the case, attorney Zhiming determined based on relevant laws and facts that the car owner should not bear responsibility for the car's spontaneous combustion, and thus filed a complaint with the Nanshan District Court, requesting the court to order the seller and repairer to compensate the car owner for economic losses of 147,000 yuan. On November 7, 2006, the Xili Tribunal of the Nanshan District Court held a hearing on the case, during which both sides engaged in a fierce debate.
Lawyer Zhiming stated that an automobile trading company in Shenzhen, as the dealer, should bear product contract liability and quality assurance obligations for the quality of the Audi vehicles it sold, and should ensure that the vehicles possess the performance required for normal use. The fact that the vehicle spontaneously combusted and was severely burned while being driven under normal conditions indicates that the vehicle sold by the company had serious latent quality defects. Lawyer Zhiming also provided multiple reports of Audi A6 vehicles manufactured in 2003 across the country that spontaneously combusted and were destroyed due to design defects, as well as evidence from expert determinations. Lawyer Wang believed that, according to the administrative regulations of relevant State Council ministries and commissions on the recall of defective automobile products, automotive products with quality defects should be recalled, and the recall period is within 10 years from the date of delivery of the complete vehicle. At the same time, the regulation also stipulates that even if manufacturers and dealers recall defective vehicles, they should still bear relevant liability for losses and damages already caused to vehicle owners. The Product Quality Law also stipulates that where damage is caused by product defects, the burden of proof shall be borne by the producer or seller, except in three circumstances. Since the vehicle had undergone repairs before the incident and the area where the spontaneous combustion occurred had been disassembled and reassembled prior to the incident, Lawyer Wang believed that there might be a possibility that improper repairs led to the vehicle's spontaneous combustion. The repair company claimed to be an authorized service station of FAW Audi, but it is understood that the repair company did not have the qualification to repair Audi vehicles, and its repair techniques may have been defective, resulting in incorrect wiring connections or improper assembly of parts that caused the spontaneous combustion. Where human external causes are ruled out, the seller and the repair company should jointly bear liability for compensating the losses.
The automobile trading company argued in its defense: The vehicle sold to Mr. Li was of qualified quality. Not only did the vehicle have the manufacturer's certificate of conformity, but the seller also conducted pre-sale inspections in accordance with regulations before delivering the vehicle to Mr. Li, and the vehicle met the warranty conditions during the warranty period. The original certificate of conformity is a mandatory document required for each motor vehicle to be registered and licensed with the public security vehicle management department and to obtain a motor vehicle driving license; otherwise, the vehicle management department would never have permitted its registration and licensing. The fact that the vehicle in question was able to successfully obtain the relevant certificates and operate normally for more than two years demonstrates that the vehicle's quality was excellent. Mr. Li had already used the vehicle for more than two years, far exceeding the one-year quality warranty period. During this period, the vehicle was also involved in a major traffic accident and was repaired by another maintenance company. Therefore, the spontaneous combustion damage to the vehicle was unrelated to the seller.
The auto repair company stated that it is indeed not an authorized repair point for Audi vehicles, and it neither expressly nor implicitly indicated to Mr. Li that it was an authorized repair point. However, the lack of authorized dealership status does not mean it cannot repair Audi vehicles, as the company is a qualified auto repair company with the technical capability to repair Audis. Moreover, Mr. Li currently has no evidence proving that the vehicle's spontaneous combustion was caused by the company's improper repairs.
Regarding the trader's defense of qualified quality, Attorney Zhiming refuted: the fact that the plaintiff's vehicle spontaneously combusted and was severely burned while being driven under normal conditions indicates that the defendant's vehicle had a serious safety hazard arising from quality defects, which is not an ordinary product quality issue. It should be subject to recall or compensation under the Procedures for the Administration of Recall of Defective Automobile Products. As for the defense that the vehicle had been in use for over one year beyond the quality warranty period, Attorney Zhiming stated that this pertains to the ordinary quality dispute limitation set for general auto parts maintenance and repair, and is unrelated to the guaranteed safe service life. A vehicle with quality defects should not be constrained by this limitation. Moreover, the plaintiff's new car had been in use for only two and a half years before experiencing a major safety accident involving spontaneous combustion and total destruction, which does not exceed the legally prescribed safety period.
For the repairer's defense, Attorney Zhiming rebutted: The relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff is one of a work contract, and the purpose of the vehicle repair is to restore it to its original condition, restore its normal performance, and enable safe use. Now, the vehicle spontaneously combusted one month after repair, which proves that the defendant's work quality was substandard and that the defendant should bear legal liability.
Filing an appeal
The following month, the Nanshan District Court rendered its judgment in this case: the plaintiff's claims were dismissed. Attorney Zhiming, continuing to accept the plaintiff's commission, filed an appeal in accordance with the law. In response to the errors in the judgment regarding the determination of facts and the application of law, Attorney Zhiming made forceful rebuttals one by one:
1. This case is a product quality defect tort dispute, not an ordinary individual product quality flaw tort dispute. The court of first instance, however, turned a blind eye to this and mechanically and dogmatically demanded that the appellant provide evidence of individual product quality flaws. As for the professional and authoritative determination of "defect," it can only lawfully be conducted by the manufacturer itself or the relevant state regulatory authorities (see the Regulations on the Administration of Recall of Defective Automobile Products). The manufacturer and seller should bear the responsibility for self-determination and burden of proof. As for the consumer (the appellant vehicle owner), the burden of proof extends only to the facts of damage and the facts of consumption, for which the appellant has already lawfully submitted to the court of first instance legitimate evidence of vehicle purchase and consumption and of the vehicle's self-ignition and destruction. As for the court of first instance's finding that the vehicle sold by the appellee No. 1 to the appellant was of qualified quality and had already been accepted by the appellant upon inspection, this assertion clearly does not apply to a complexly constructed sedan product whose serious quality defects can only be discovered and verified after operation; otherwise, the state would not have needed to formulate the Regulations on the Administration of Recall of Defective Automobile Products in accordance with international norms. In this regard, Attorney Wang also attached as supporting evidence a new report from the Private Enterprise Economy News dated December 12, 2006, titled "Audi A6 CVT Design Defects Lay Numerous Repair Traps."
2. The appellee in the second instance does not possess Audi A6 authorized maintenance qualifications. The court of first instance insisted on holding that the appellant had no evidence to prove the appellee's fault, and stubbornly maintained that as long as one can repair cars, one can repair Audi vehicles. This is clearly a subjective assumption that disregards the objective reality of differences in technical product maintenance, and is illogical.
3. Since the dispute in this case concerns a product quality tort arising from a defective Audi A6 automobile, the First Appellee should be subject to the relevant specific provisions of China's Product Quality Law and the Regulations on the Administration of Recall of Defective Automobile Products, while the Second Appellee should be subject to the relevant provisions of China's Regulations on the Administration of Motor Vehicle Maintenance and Repair. Moreover, given that the physical evidence in this case was destroyed by spontaneous combustion, and the public security fire department determined that external human causes were excluded, the original trial court should have rendered a judgment fairly and reasonably in accordance with the principle of fairness stipulated in Article 4 of the General Principles of the Civil Law of China, even if the precise cause could not be ascertained (i.e., where it was impossible to confirm which of the two appellees had a sole causal relationship with the vehicle's spontaneous combustion and destruction). The original trial court erroneously characterized this product quality tort dispute involving a defective automobile as an ordinary individual vehicle quality defect tort dispute, and consequently applied incorrect legal provisions in rendering an erroneous judgment, to which the Appellant expresses strong dissatisfaction. The Appellant respectfully requests that the court of second instance revoke the erroneous judgment of the original trial in accordance with the law, and amend the judgment to uphold the Appellant's reasonable claims.
4. Reflections on the Loss of Claims in Both Trial Judgments
After the court of second instance held a hearing, it issued its judgment on October 18, 2007. The court of second instance held that the facts found in the original judgment were clear and accurate, and it confirmed them.
After the Tort Liability Law of the People's Republic of China was promulgated on December 26, 2009, Lawyer Zhiming reflected on this case in light of the new law's provisions on defective products, and believed that the argument put forward in the representation opinion at the time—that manufacturers and sellers should bear responsibility for the spontaneous combustion of the sedan—was correct and creatively ahead of its time.
The Tort Liability Law provides: "Article 45 Where a product defect endangers the personal or property safety of another person, the infringed person has the right to request the producer or seller to bear tort liability such as eliminating the obstruction and removing the danger.
Article 46 Where a defect is discovered after a product has been put into circulation, the producer or seller shall promptly take remedial measures such as warnings and recalls. Where damage is caused by failure to take remedial measures in a timely manner or by inadequate remedial measures, the producer or seller shall bear tort liability.
Article 47: Where a person knowingly produces or sells products with defects, causing the death of another person or serious damage to their health, the infringed party has the right to request corresponding punitive damages.
Zhiming Law Firm believes that the promulgation and implementation of the Tort Liability Law is a monumental and commendable undertaking, marking a leapfrog advancement in our country's protection of people's livelihood and civil rights. The aforementioned provisions not only cover potential tort damages across multiple areas of people's livelihood but also explicitly introduce the internationally advanced "punitive damages" provision, which strengthens the civil liability of producers and sellers, enhances the protection of consumers' livelihood rights on a broader scale, and will undoubtedly greatly elevate the awareness of integrity and law-abiding conduct in our country's production and consumption sectors, promote a civilized and healthy economic environment, and maintain social order that is harmonious and friendly! Had the aforementioned case occurred today, faced with such "clear" and "humanized" legal provisions, no court would dare wrongly rule against the plaintiff again! In this case, a few years ago, due to the lack of directly applicable legal provisions that could be straightforwardly cited, although the lawyer creatively presented comprehensive facts, law, and reasoning, the judge, while highly praising the presentation as eye-opening and educational, remained constrained by Chinese characteristics and failed to rule in the plaintiff's favor. However, the creative interpretation and application of the law by both the representing lawyer and the presiding judge is precisely what urgently needs to be advocated and learned. After all, no great lawyer or great judge could ever be shaped by someone who is conventional, rigid, and inflexible!
(Commentary by Attorney Zhiming)
Zhiming Office
November 3, 2010
