A car caught fire after being driven for more than four years and changing hands twice, accumulating over 70,000 kilometers. The question arose of who should be held responsible—the manufacturer or the seller? On March 18th, the Hunan High Court released a verdict on this product quality liability dispute.
Mr. Liu purchased a second-hand car for 296,800 yuan, which had been driven for only half a year previously. Over the next four years, the car covered a total distance of 70,000 kilometers. In February 2022, the vehicle suddenly caught fire during a journey.
The fire department determined that the fire originated from within the vehicle’s engine compartment and ruled out arson or accidental smoking as causes. Possible causes included electrical or fuel system faults.
Between the time of purchase and the fire incident, the car underwent maintenance at a repair shop nine times. The estimated loss due to the fire was over 210,000 yuan. Mr. Liu sued both the car dealer and the manufacturer, seeking compensation.
Further investigation revealed that in May 2022, the car manufacturer issued a recall notice for certain models, stating that an auxiliary coolant pump defect could lead to overheating and potential engine compartment fires—Mr. Liu’s car was part of this recall.
The court ruled that this was a product quality liability dispute. According to relevant laws, Mr. Liu could seek compensation from either the producer or the seller of the product.
The dispute centered on two aspects: whether the car had a defect and how liability should be assigned. Although the exact cause of the fire could not be determined due to the severe damage, the court considered the recall notice and the fire department’s findings as evidence of a quality defect.
Regarding liability, the court found Mr. Liu partially responsible for not properly maintaining the car. The car’s maintenance schedule aligned with the manual’s requirements, but Mr. Liu’s evidence did not confirm the maintenance details. The car dealer was not found at fault in the sales process. Therefore, the manufacturer bore 90% of the responsibility, and Mr. Liu 10%, resulting in the manufacturer compensating Mr. Liu over 189,000 yuan.
The judge emphasized the increasing complexity of car disputes due to technological advancements and extended usage periods. The Consumer Rights Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China allows consumers to claim compensation from both sellers and producers in case of product defects, ensuring consumer rights are protected effectively. Despite the car’s resale history, Mr. Liu retained his rights as a consumer to seek compensation from both the manufacturer and the seller after suffering property damage from the car fire.