Beijing News (reporter Bo Qiyu) In mid-June 2021, a resident of Shijingshan District of Beijing took the battery of the purchased electric vehicle home to charge, during which the battery exploded and caused a fire, and after rescue and rescue, the household was safe and sound, but because the items in the home were seriously damaged, the resident sued the electric bicycle dealer Beijing Company and the manufacturer Jiangsu Xinri Electric Vehicle Co., Ltd. to the court, and demanded that the latter compensate it for various losses totaling more than 110,000 yuan.
On the afternoon of December 13, a reporter from the Beijing News learned from the Shijingshan District People's Court that recently, the Shijingshan Court pronounced a judgment on the product liability dispute case caused by the fire caused by the charging of electric bicycle batteries in the home, and the plaintiff was finally awarded 90,000 yuan.
▲The scene of the online trial. Photo courtesy of Shijingshan District People's Court
Controversy: Whether the electric bicycle involved in the case has quality defects
The plaintiff said that the plaintiff's family had purchased an electric vehicle from a company in Beijing, the defendant's dealership. On June 13, 2021, the plaintiff took the battery of the electric bicycle to the home to charge, and did not want the battery to suddenly catch fire and explode, resulting in a serious fire, resulting in the plaintiff's family being trapped in the fire. After rescue and rescue, the plaintiff's family was safe and sound, but the fire destroyed all the items in the house, including furniture, electrical appliances, antiques, calligraphy and paintings, and so on. The plaintiff sued the dealer and manufacturer of the electric bicycle to the court, demanding that the defendant manufacturer, Jiangsu Xinri Electric Vehicle Co., Ltd., compensate the plaintiff for medical expenses, battery cost losses, and various property losses totaling more than 110,000 yuan.
The defendant manufacturer, Jiangsu Xinri Electric Vehicle Co., Ltd., argued that although the electric bicycle was indeed produced by itself, it was not equipped with a battery when it was sold from the factory, the ownership of the battery that spontaneously ignited was unknown, and the fire had nothing to do with its own side.
The defendant distributor, a company in Beijing, denied that there was a sales contract relationship with the plaintiff, and claimed that the goods sold by the defendant were all equipped with certificates of conformity and instruction manuals, and had fulfilled their obligation to indicate and should not be liable. At the same time, a company in Beijing, the defendant dealer, also said that it was a complete vehicle for sale.
At the trial, the plaintiff said that he also knew that he could not charge at home, but the number of public charging piles in the community was limited, and he had to charge at home.
After trial, the Shijingshan court held that although the manufacturer and seller of the electric bicycle denied that the accident was related to themselves, combined with the archival materials registered by the traffic management department, the photos of the electric bicycle, and other evidence, and the opinions of the parties, it was sufficient to determine that a dealer, a company in Beijing, sold the whole vehicle including batteries to the plaintiff, and that Jiangsu Xinri Electric Vehicle Co., Ltd., a manufacturer of electric vehicles including batteries, produced and manufactured the whole vehicle. In the event of a fire, the e-bike is still under warranty. According to the fire department, the cause of the fire was caused by the thermal runaway of the battery failure of the electric bicycle. Therefore, whether the electric bicycle involved in the case has a quality defect has become the primary core dispute focus of the trial of this case.
Court: The manufacturer is unable to produce evidence and is liable for compensation accordingly
After trial, the court held that according to the law, product liability is a special kind of tort liability, regardless of whether the producer or seller is at fault, as long as it meets the constituent elements of product liability, it should bear tort liability to the victim. In the allocation of the burden of proof, the producer and seller shall bear the burden of proof as to whether the product is defective and whether there is no causal relationship between the defect and the result of the damage.
Article 1202 of the Civil Code stipulates that if a defective product causes damage to others, the producer shall bear tort liability; Article 1203 stipulates that if the defective product causes damage to others, the infringed party may request compensation from the producer of the product or from the seller of the product. Article 41 of the Product Quality Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that if the defective product causes damage to the person or other property other than the defective product, the producer shall bear the liability for compensation.
According to the above-mentioned legal provisions, the infringed party may choose to claim rights against the seller of the product or the producer of the product. In this case, although the plaintiff sued the seller and the producer at the same time, it ultimately chose to claim rights only against the defendant manufacturer, Jiangsu Xinri Electric Vehicle Co., Ltd. Because the manufacturer, Jiangsu Xinri Electric Vehicle Co., Ltd., was unable to produce evidence to prove that there were no defects in the electric bicycles involved in the production or that there was no causal link between the defects and the consequences of the damage, the company should bear the corresponding liability for compensation.
However, the plaintiff, knowing the fire risk involved in the indoor charging of electric bicycles, still brought the electric bicycle batteries into the indoor charging, and there should also be certain faults in the occurrence of fire accidents and the expansion of losses. According to Article 1173 of the Civil Code, "if the infringed party is at fault for the occurrence or expansion of the same damage, the liability of the infringer may be reduced", so the liability of the manufacturer Jiangsu Xinri Electric Vehicle Co., Ltd. should be appropriately reduced.
In the end, the court ordered the defendant, Jiangsu Xinri Electric Vehicle Co., Ltd., to compensate the plaintiff for various losses totaling 90,000 yuan within seven days after the judgment took effect. At present, the two sides have not appealed.
According to the judge, in recent years, due to the frequent occurrence of electric bicycle fire accidents, the relevant departments have long made clear provisions on the parking of electric bicycles, charging fire prevention, etc. The news media, street communities, residential properties, etc. have vigorously publicized and actively guided the charging and fire safety of electric bicycles. In this case, the plaintiff, as a person with full capacity for civil conduct, still took the battery home to charge it, which eventually led to a fire. Therefore, once again remind the majority of electric bicycle users, be sure to go to the designated charging place in the community for charging, do not charge the battery or electric bicycle into the home. Residential properties should reasonably allocate the number of electric vehicle charging piles in accordance with the specific conditions such as the number of people in the community and the number of electric bicycles, and at the same time, further strengthen the publicity and education of fire safety, and actively guide the majority of residents to public charging places for charging. In addition, manufacturers and sellers of products should strictly control product quality, strictly prevent unqualified products from flowing into the market, and avoid losses to users and consumers.
Proofreading By Chen Diyan
![Tracking | "Thank you very much for the information of Huashang Daily" consumer appeals have results[fig]]()