AutoBeta(AutoBeta.net)08/22 Report--

Recently, the Civil judgment of second instance on Product liability disputes of Guangzhou Baoyue Automobile Trading Co., Ltd., BMW (China) Automobile Trading Co., Ltd., issued by the Intermediate people's Court of Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province, rejected the above and upheld the original verdict. this judgment is final.

The course of the case: in March 2011, Xiao bought a BMW off-road vehicle in Guangzhou Baoyue for 709000 yuan. in the subsequent use process, the plaintiff used the vehicle according to the vehicle manual and maintained it regularly. In September 2018, the car suddenly smoked and caught fire while driving on the road, and was finally burned into an empty shell. In October 2018, Xiao commissioned the Judicial Identification Center of Jinan University to identify the cause of the vehicle fire. according to the appraisal opinion given by the appraisal center, it was determined that the cause of the vehicle fire was "caused by the electric fire caused by the failure of electrical components in the engine cabin". And rule out the possibility of external open fire and external collisions and other accidents and fire, that is to say, the cause of the fire is caused by the fault of the vehicle itself. In addition, according to a notice issued by the State Administration of Market Supervision on May 27, 2019, BMW recalled imported BMW cars according to the requirements, because "the engine crankcase ventilation pipe heater (PCV heater) of the vehicle may increase the contact resistance due to water vapor corrosion after long-term use, resulting in overheating melting damage of the plastic shell of the heater." It increases the risk of the vehicle catching fire. " Xiao bought a BMW within the scope of the recall, so he believes that the burning BMW has product defects. Xiao put forward: 1. The defendant Baoyue was ordered to compensate the plaintiff for property damage: 236000 yuan in vehicle market value, 8283.28 yuan in vehicle insurance premium, 60598 yuan in vehicle purchase tax and 1000 yuan in transportation expenses, totaling 305881.28 yuan. The defendant Baoyue Company was ordered to bear the judicial appraisal fee of 12000 yuan and the vehicle market value evaluation fee of 23000 yuan. Order the defendant BMW and the defendant Baoyue to bear joint and several liability; 4. The two defendants were ordered to bear the costs of the case. In response to Xiao's claim, Guangzhou Bowie and BMW have refuted.

The court held that the spontaneous combustion of the vehicle purchased by Xiao had occurred in the course of driving, which showed that the product had the above danger, and Xiao had proved that the spontaneous combustion of the vehicle involved was not caused by arson, and it had been carrying out regular maintenance and repair at the authorized dealer of BMW after buying the vehicle involved, so Xiao had completed the burden of proof for the defect of the product, and the court determined that the product was defective according to law. Xiao has the right to claim compensation from the seller. On the other hand, when the dealer suggested that the relevant parts should be replaced, Xiao asked not to deal with it for the time being. Xiao did not pay the necessary duty of care for the maintenance and use of the product. I also had some fault and should bear part of the loss on my own. According to the actual situation of the case and the specific fault of the parties, Xiao is responsible for 30% of the loss, Bao Hyatt is responsible for 70%, and BMW is jointly and severally liable.

The court finally decided that 1. The loss of the vehicle is 236000 yuan. According to the evaluation of Guangzhou Anheng Price firm Co., Ltd., the market value of the vehicle involved before the fire was 236000 yuan. two。 The appraisal fee is 12000 yuan and the evaluation fee is 23000 yuan. These two expenses are necessary expenses for determining the cause of the vehicle fire and claiming the related losses, and the two expenses should also be included in the corresponding losses. The above-mentioned losses totaled 271000 yuan, of which 189700 yuan (271000 yuan × 70%) should be compensated by BMW, and BMW shall be jointly and severally liable. Xiao Bin's other claims are lack of factual and legal basis, and the court will not support them.

Both Guangzhou Bao Yue and BMW did not comply with the judgment of the first instance of the people's Court of Panyu District, Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province, so they filed an appeal to the Guangzhou Intermediate people's Court of Guangdong Province. Guangzhou Baoyue appeal request: first, rescind the first judgment of the first instance and reject all the claims of Xiao Bin; second, the litigation costs of the first and second instance of this case shall be borne by Xiao Bin. BMW appeal request: first, rescind the judgment of the first instance; second, change the judgment to reject all the claims of Xiao Bin; third, all the litigation costs of this case shall be borne by Xiao Bin.

The Guangzhou Intermediate people's Court of Guangdong Province held that according to the opinions of both sides, the focus of the dispute in the second instance of the case was whether there were defects in the vehicle involved and the determination of compensation fees for Bowie and BMW.

The court of second instance finally rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment. The fee for accepting the case in the second instance is 4094 yuan, which is borne by Guangzhou Baoyue Automobile Trading Co., Ltd., and BMW (China) Automobile Trading Co., Ltd. This judgment is final.

Welcome to subscribe to the WeChat public account "Automotive Industry Focus" to get the first-hand insider information on the automotive industry and talk about things in the automotive circle. Welcome to break the news! WeChat ID autoWechat