No compensation for fire damage caused by air conditioner failure for more than 10 years
In January 2020, the Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People's Court rejected the appeals of Shen and Sheng: The quality of the air conditioner caused the fire and the loss, and Sharp should bear the corresponding compensation responsibility.
In May 2008, Shanghai citizens Shen Zhangbao and Sheng Xinqun and his wife purchased Sharp AY-36PTX wall-mounted air conditioner and installed it in the bedroom on the north side of their house in Room XXX6, Dongzhuanbang Road, Changning District, Shanghai. At about 19:28 on September 21, 2018, a fire broke out in the house involved in the case, which caused damage to the contents, walls, and walls of the house.
According to the fire department of the public security, “the location of the fire was the upper part of the northwest side of the bedroom on the north side of the household. The cause of the fire was the failure of the air conditioner's internal equipment and electrical appliances. Due to the unsuccessful negotiation of economic compensation, Shen Zhangbao, Sheng Xinqun and their daughter Shen Yan sued the court: requesting that the defendant Shanghai Sharp Electric Co., Ltd. be ordered to pay the plaintiff RMB 77,850 for the loss of items in the house, RMB 60,000 for the restoration of calligraphy works, and house decoration. 84,451.50 yuan, 64,800 yuan for house rental loss, 15,400 yuan for appraisal, appraisal, and price review, and 3,950 yuan for rental agency.
Sharp argued that the air conditioner involved in the case had been delivered for use for more than 10 years, and the public security and fire department adopted simplified procedures for the investigation of the fire accident in this case, and its investigation procedures were flawed. The public security fire department also did not conduct a physical and chemical analysis of the cause of the fire, and its certificate did not provide relevant basis and technical analysis for judging the point of the fire and the cause of the fire. Therefore, they did not agree with the plaintiff's claims.
After investigation, on May 1, 2008, the plaintiff Shen Yan purchased Sharp air conditioners, and the installation was in place on May 10, and the plaintiff Sheng Xinqun signed the air conditioner installation card for confirmation. It was more than 10 years since the fire broke out, and the plaintiff’s claims were rejected. Shen et al. appealed against it and was dismissed.
【Constantly discuss the law】
Lawyer Liu Qingping from Beijing Henglue Law Firm believes that if a product has a defect that causes damage to others, the producer shall bear the tort liability; however, the right to claim compensation for damage caused by a product defect is to be delivered to the original consumer Lost for ten years.
In this case, the air conditioner involved in the case was purchased on May 1, 2008, and the installation was completed on May 10, which means that the air conditioner involved in the case was delivered when the purchase and installation were completed, and the air conditioner was delivered before the fire occurred (September 21, 2018) ) Has exceeded 10 years, and the plaintiff has lost its right to claim damages against the product manufacturer (the defendant Sharp).
Henglue lawyer reminded:
Summer is coming and the electricity load is heavy, please pay attention to the safety of electricity. If your personal or property safety is damaged, please claim your rights in time.
