AutoBeta(AutoBeta.net)08/17 Report--

The man sued brilliance BMW and its dealers for spontaneous combustion when he bought a BMW hybrid, and finally got 400000 yuan in compensation.

According to the judge's documents, Wang bought a BMW hybrid car on October 23, 2019, with a total price tax of 426780 yuan, of which the vehicle purchase tax was 49098.58 yuan. In the early morning of September 20, 2020, a BMW hybrid car caught fire in the parking lot of Heng Shengyuan Enterprise Service Center, 33 Jinling Road, Licang District, Qingdao. After being called to the police, firefighters came to the scene to inspect the scene.

On September 21, 2020, the Fire Rescue Brigade of Licang District of Qingdao issued a "simple investigation Certificate of Fire accident". The on-the-spot investigation shows that after on-the-spot investigation, the BMW car is parked from east to west, the front of the car faces to the east, there is no trace of overfire on the outside of the car, there is a gap in the window on the right side of the rear row, and there are signs of smoke on the outside of the window. Other parts of the outside are intact. There are heavy smoke marks in the interior of the car, there are no signs of overfire in the co-driver and the rear seat, there are signs of overfire in the leather seat of the main cab, and a hole is burned in the middle part of the leather cushion. There are signs of fire in the middle control lever operating platform near the seat of the main cab. When you open the upper part of the seat, there are obvious signs of overfire in the lower part of the seat, the sponge filler of the seat cushion is burned, the residue of a number of copper wires remains at the bottom of the seat, the skin of the copper wire is burned, and the copper wire is exposed, and an electronic component is relatively intact. There is a surveillance in the office building on the south side of the car. after a video survey of the surveillance storage, it was found that there was a continuous electric fire in the seat position of the driver's cab at about 1: 39 on September 20, 2020, and the smoke spread inside the car. According to the investigation, there were no casualties and no suspicion of arson in the fire. The fact of the fire accident part states: after investigation, it is determined that the fire can rule out the possibility of the fire caused by the remaining fire and foreign fire sources, which is caused by the failure of the electrical circuit in the bottom of the main cab seat of the BMW car.

On September 24, 2020, brilliance BMW conducted an on-site inspection of the burning vehicle and informed Wang in writing of the on-site inspection on October 16, 2020, saying that the possibility of the fire caused by technical or quality problems in the driver's seat could be ruled out. the possibility of causing the fire due to the fire left behind at the bottom of the driver's seat (such as electronic lighters, etc.) can not be ruled out.

On November 12, 2021, brilliance BMW said in the transcript of the inquiry made by the court of first instance that it had mainly inspected the ignition point during the disassembly and inspection of the burning vehicle, and no addition or modification was found at the ignition point. at the same time, all electrical components and wire harnesses in the combustion area were checked one by one, and no signs of short circuit or internal faults were found.

On the question of whether the vehicle has quality defects, the court of first instance held that, in general, the cause of vehicle spontaneous combustion is mainly caused by man-made causes, external factors and defects in the vehicle itself. The "simple investigation confirmation of Fire accident" excludes factors such as remaining kindles and foreign sources of fire, and brilliance BMW also admits that no addition or modification was found in the combustion area in the process of disassembly and inspection. it is sufficient to conclude that Wang claims that the vehicle has a quality defect and has completed the burden of proof. Under the condition that brilliance BMW does not have enough effective evidence to prove that there is a legal exemption cause, it is presumed that there is a quality defect in the spontaneous combustion system of the vehicle.

The court of first instance ordered brilliance BMW and the dealer to compensate Wang for a total of 402705 yuan in all losses, but brilliance BMW refused to accept the first instance judgment of the Licang District people's Court of Qingdao City, Shandong Province, and then filed an appeal to the Intermediate people's Court of Qingdao City, Shandong Province.

In the second trial, the Qingdao Intermediate people's Court of Shandong Province excluded the appraisal institutions recommended by both sides. Nanjing weight Certificate testing Technology Co., Ltd. was selected in accordance with the law to identify the cause of the fire of the BMW car and whether there is a causal relationship between the cause of the fire and the product quality. According to the "Product quality Appraisal opinion" issued by Nanjing weight Certificate testing Technology Co., Ltd., stating the cause of the fire of the BMW plug-in hybrid car can rule out the possibility of fire caused by electrical trouble. the possibility of ignition of flammable and explosive materials or left fire in the car cannot be ruled out, and there is no causal relationship between the fire of the vehicle and the quality of the product.

The court of second instance refused to accept the "Product quality Appraisal opinion" issued by Nanjing weight Certificate testing Technology Co., Ltd. at the same time, it accepted the "simple Fire accident investigation Certificate" issued by the Fire Rescue Brigade of Licang District of Qingdao City, the specific reasons are as follows:

The court of second instance held that according to the "simple investigation Certificate of Fire accident" issued by the Fire Rescue Brigade in Licang District of Qingdao City, the cause of the car fire in this case was caused by electrical circuit failure, and the car in this case had quality defects. Although brilliance BMW applied for identification, the appraisal opinion was not enough to overturn the administrative determination made by the administrative department under its authority, and the court did not accept its claim that there was no defect in the vehicle in this case. To sum up, brilliance BMW's appeal grounds are not tenable, and its appeal request cannot be supported by the court. The judgment of first instance finds the facts clearly, the applicable law is correct, and should be upheld.

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