Three, no lithium battery charging causes an explosion, the seller bears joint and several liability for compensation

Recently, Suzhou Wuzhong Court concluded a tort liability dispute case involving burns caused by explosion caused by lithium battery charging. The court finally determined that the lithium battery involved in the case was 'without quality inspection certificate, no name, name of the manufacturer, factory address, and Product specifications, no warning signs or Chinese warning descriptions 'three-no' products, sentenced to a battery manufacturer a technology company to compensate the injured Zhang 690,000 yuan, and a seller of an electric vehicle company to bear joint and several liability for compensation.

According to the arrangement of his company, Zhang, who is engaged in the food delivery industry, paid a lithium battery lease deposit to an electric vehicle company and obtained a 60V20Ah lithium battery for emergency use of food delivery. On the morning of the 12th, Zhang placed the lithium battery involved in the case on the balcony of his residence to charge, while he was sitting aside playing with his mobile phone. Unexpectedly, about an hour later, the lithium battery being charged suddenly exploded and burned. The flame was sprayed, causing Zhang. A certain body suffered extensive burns. It was identified that Zhang’s main injury was flame burns to his face, neck, trunk and limbs, which resulted in scar formation and constituted a seventh-degree disability. The fire department of the public security issued the 'Fire Accident Recognition' and determined that the cause of the fire did not rule out the battery failure and the fire caused by the battery. Zhang believes that he used the lithium battery provided by an electric vehicle company to cause personal damage. After the accident, the electric vehicle company has compensated 140,000 yuan, and the lithium battery manufacturer and a technology company should also bear the corresponding responsibility. The two companies were sued to the court, requesting an order for a technology company to compensate its losses totaling 667,772.95 yuan (after deducting 140,000 yuan paid by an electric vehicle company), and an electric vehicle company to bear joint and several liability for compensation.

An electric vehicle company believes that Zhang has no clear basis for the quality of the lithium battery involved, and there is no direct evidence that Zhang’s damage is related to the battery. The ultimate responsibility of the accident should be a technology company of the manufacturer. A technology company believes that the 'Fire Accident Recognition' identified the cause of the accident as 'the battery failure of the battery car caused a fireIt is possible to modify the battery provided, and a certain electric vehicle company is also responsible for inspection.

The two companies have their own opinions. Who will bear the responsibility for the accident? It was found that the lithium battery involved in the case was packaged in a metal casing provided by a technology company to an electric vehicle company without quality inspection certificate, no name, name of the manufacturer, site and product specifications, no warning signs or warning instructions in Chinese. After the accident, the two companies communicated as soon as possible. The personnel of the electric vehicle company informed the person in charge of the technology company that it 'exploded again' and sent photos of the accident scene. The person in charge of the technology company responded: 'What happened?' Home?' etc., did not raise any objection to the provision of lithium batteries in the accident. From August to September, the personnel of the two companies exchanged again 'another explosion, or the iron shell

After trial, the Wuzhong court held that if a product has a defect that causes personal damage, the victim can claim compensation from the product manufacturer. First of all, the producer should be responsible for the quality of the product, and should not produce the 'three no' products with 'no quality inspection certificate, no name, name of the manufacturer, site and product specifications, no warning signs or Chinese warning descriptions'; the specific situation is comprehensive , The court decided that a technology company should compensate Zhang for a loss of 690,000 yuan, and Zhang would be responsible for the rest. In view of Zhang's compensation of 140,000 yuan, the court finally ruled that a technology company should compensate Zhang for 550,000 yuan, and an electric vehicle company shall bear joint and several liability.

Summary: Remind all lithium battery manufacturers that the production must be in accordance with national standards. If you encounter something in this article, it will be a great loss to yourself. Of course, if If the product has formal production procedures and product insurance, these concerns can be completely ignored! In a word, 'standard production, quality first' must ensure that the product is qualified! In order to develop better in the industry.