Lu net / picture Shandong commercial newspaper reporter Li Shiwu
a long time ago, a citizen in Ji'nan rides an electric car with a car, but the electric vehicle is identified as a motor vehicle. In this way, the owner of the electric vehicle has to take the corresponding adverse consequences according to the principle of vehicle accident treatment. After the incident, the owner of the electric vehicle in a rage charges the electric car manufacturer to the court that the electric vehicle produced by the manufacturer is "exceeding the standard", which requires the electric vehicle manufacturer to take the liability for accident compensation. an electric car accident was identified as a day before the motor vehicle
. Ms. Zhang, a Ji'nan citizen, rides a private car with a private car when she rides a certain brand of electric car to a downtown intersection, causing Miss Zhang's injury and electric car damage.
after the accident, Ms. Zhang thought that he was a non motor vehicle on his own. In dealing with the accident, she belonged to the weak side. The traffic police department would deal with the accident in accordance with the principle of handling accidents of non motor vehicles and motor vehicles. What is the case, as the private owner of the other side of the accident, the owner of the car is "more real", thinking that the electric vehicle driving by Ms. Zhang was faster and should not deal with the accident by reference to non motor vehicles. The traffic police department commissioned the authority to identify the electric vehicle of Ms. Zhang. The conclusion was that the electric vehicle driven by Ms. Zhang was two wheeled portable motorcycles, which belonged to the motor vehicle category.
due to the cause of the accident, both sides insisted on each other. The responsibility for the accident could not be identified. After thinking about it, Ms. Zhang thinks that since the electric car that he bought is identified as a motor vehicle, is it not responsible for the manufacturers to produce "super standard" electric vehicles? Is it necessary for her to "pay the bill" for the loss of his own accident?
manufacturers believe that they are "no responsibility"
judge Tian Feng, who was in the case of the case of the Ji'nan calendar, told reporters that the electric car manufacturer was "very wrong" after she was taken to court by Ms. Zhang. The manufacturer thinks that the electric vehicle produced by the manufacturer is a certified product quality supervision and Inspection Institute. A qualified product identified. According to the general technical conditions of electric vehicles, the products sold by the manufacturers have reached the national standard. In addition, the manufacturer thinks that the electric vehicle produced by the manufacturer is a DC brushless motor controller. All the vehicles sold are within 20 km of the national standard. The vehicles in the factory are all installed with the finite speed device. If there is a change or pull down, the vehicle will not have a speed limit.
based on these reasons, the manufacturer said in the court that Ms. Zhang is not the electric vehicle produced by the manufacturer. The accident has no cause and effect relationship with the quality of the electric vehicle, so the manufacturer should not bear the responsibility.
after the court refutation to
take over the case, judge Tian Feng found that the main dispute in this case lies in whether the electric vehicle involved in the case is defective. Is there any causal relationship between Miss Zhang's loss and the electric cars produced by electric vehicle manufacturers?
judge Tian Feng told reporters that, as electric vehicle manufacturers did not apply for reappraisal, the court first took a letter from the previous forensic identification report. That is, the electric vehicles involved do not conform to the national standards. In this case, Ms. Zhang has the right to request the electric vehicle company to refund the purchase of the car in accordance with the contract of sale and purchase. However, on the most controversial issues of the dispute between the two parties, the court heard that the traffic police did not identify the cause of the accident, that is, the cause of the accident could not be found out. "
" Ms. Zhang has no evidence that the traffic accident is due to the defects of the electric vehicle, that is, there is no causal relationship between the defects of the electric vehicle and the traffic accident of Ms. Zhang. " Judge Tian Feng told reporters that, according to the regulations, the property damage of the person and other people caused by the defects of the product, the victim can claim compensation to the producer of the product, and can also claim compensation to the seller of the product. But in this case, it is not due to the defective product of the incident, so Ms. Zhang's litigation request, without the facts and legal basis, the hospital does not support, first trial dismissal.