>>>welcome visitor, haven't logged in. Login
Subscribe Now Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Chen Meijin and Lin Dexin V. Mitsubishi Auto Industry Co. Ltd. in Japan(Case of Personal Injury Compensation) (Case of Personal Injury Compensation)
陈梅金、林德鑫诉日本三菱汽车工业株式会社损害赔偿纠纷案
【法宝引证码】
  • Type of Dispute: Civil-->Tort ; Civil-->Deleted Cause of Action
  • Legal document: Judgment
  • Judgment date: 08-10-2000
  • Procedural status: Trial at Second Instance
  • Source: SPC Gazette,Issue 2,2001

Chen Meijin and Lin Dexin V. Mitsubishi Auto Industry Co. Ltd. in Japan(Case of Personal Injury Compensation) (Case of Personal Injury Compensation)
(Case of Personal Injury Compensation)
陈梅金、林德鑫诉日本三菱汽车工业株式会社损害赔偿纠纷案

Chen Meijin and Lin Dexin V. Mitsubishi Auto Industry Co. Ltd. in Japan(Case of Personal Injury Compensation)

 

陈梅金、林德鑫诉日本三菱汽车工业株式会社损害赔偿纠纷案

BASIC FACTS 
Plaintiff: Chen Meijin, female, 46 years old, a cadre of the Labor Bureau of Chengxiang District, Putian City, Fujian Province, resident in Chengxiang District, Putian City, Fujian Province. 原告:陈梅金,女,46岁,福建省莆田市城厢区劳动局干部,住福建省莆田市城厢区。
Plaintiff: Lin Dexin, male, 13 years old, a student of No.4 Middle School of Putian City in Fujian Province, resident in the above-mentioned address. 原告:林德鑫,男,13岁,福建省莆田市第四中学学生,住址同陈梅金。
Agent ad litem: Chen Meijin, Lin Dexin's mother. 法定代理人:陈梅金,林德鑫之母。
Authorized attorney: Li Wanhua, attorney from Beijing Huatai Law Office. 二原告委托代理人:李万华,北京华泰律师事务所律师。
Defendant: Mitsubishi Auto Industry Co. Ltd. in Japan, place of domicile: 33-8, 5-Chome, Minatoku, Tokyo Japan. 被告:日本三菱汽车工业株式会社,住所地:日本国东京都港区芝五丁目33番8号。
Legal representative: Kawada Kokuhito, President of the first division. 法定代表人:河添克彦,取缔役社长。
Authorized attorney: Hu Ronghui and Zheng Jiayun, attorneys from Beijing Zhonglun Law Office. 委托代理人:胡蓉晖、郑家运,北京市中伦律师事务所律师。
A dispute of personal injury compensation arose between the plaintiffs, Chen Meijin and Lin Dexin, and the defendant, Mitsubishi Auto Industry Co. Ltd. in Japan (hereinafter referred to as "Mitsubishi"). And the plaintiffs brought an action in the People's Court of Chaoyang District in Beijing where the defendant's Beijing office was located. 原告陈梅金、林德鑫因与被告日本三菱汽车工业株式会社(以下简称三菱公司)发生损害赔偿纠纷,向三菱公司驻中华人民共和国北京办事处所在地的北京市朝阳区人民法院提起诉讼。
The plaintiffs complained that: when one of their relatives, Lin Zhiqi was taking a jeep produced by the defendant, Lin was injured by shaking and died suddenly from the broken windshield. According to the law in China, the manufacturer shall be responsible for its products. The seller shall guaranty that the products or services it provides are in accordance with the requirements concerning the protection of personal and property safety. Therefore, the plaintiffs applied to the court for ordering the defendant to be responsible for Lin Zhiqi's death and to compensate the plaintiffs' the funeral expenses, charge for loss of working time, travel expenses, expenses for checkup, pensions for the family of the deceased, education expenses and living subsidy etc. (total amount: RMB 500,000). 原告诉称:原告的亲属林志圻在乘坐被告生产的日本三菱吉普车时,因前挡风玻璃在行驶途中突然爆裂而被震伤致猝死。我国法律规定,生产者应当对其生产的产品负责,经营者庆当保证其提供的商品或者服务符合保障人身、财产安全的要求。据此请求判令被告对林志圻之死承担责任,给原告赔偿丧葬费、误工费、差旅费、鉴定费、抚恤金、教育费、生活补助费等共计人民币50万元。
The defendant contended that both checkups made by the manufacturer of the windshield and the test made by the Supervision and Test Center for Safety Glass Quality of State Bureau of Building Materials Industry of PRC (hereinafter referred to as the Center) showed that the windshield of the said jeep was broken by a strong outside force. According to article 29 (1) of the Law of the People's Republic of China on Product Quality and article 35(2) of the Law of People's Republic of China on the Protection Consumer's Interests and Rights, two prerequisites shall be satisfied simultaneously if the manufacturer is responsible for compensating the consumer: firstly, there exists defect in the product; secondly, the personal injury or property damage is caused by the defect of the product. It was proved that the jeep involved the accident had no quality defect, i.e. there was no product defect so that there was no injury caused by product defect to speak of. Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim should be dismissed for lacking of factual and legal basis. 被告辩称:经生产厂家两次鉴定和中华人民共和国国家建材局安全玻璃质量监督检验中心(以下简称国家质检中心)的分析测试,都认为事故车的挡风玻璃是在受到较大外力冲击的情况下爆破的。无论是《中华人民共和国产品质量法》第二十九条第一款,还是《中华人民共和国消费者权益保护法》第三十五条第二款都规定,产品生产者对消费者承担赔偿责任,要同时具备两个严格的前提条件:第一,必须是产品存在缺陷;第二,必须是因产品存在的缺陷造成人身或财产损害。事实已经证明,发生事故的车辆不存在产品质量问题,也就是说不存在产品缺陷,因此谈不上因产品缺陷造成损害。原告的诉讼请求没有事实根据和法律依据,应当驳回。
...... 北京市朝阳区人民法院经审理查明:1996年9月13日,原告陈梅金之夫、林德鑫之父林志圻乘坐本单位(福建省莆田市交通局车辆购置附加费征收管理办公室,以下简称莆田车购办)的闽B00693号日本产三菱吉普车从蒲田市前往福州市。途中,该车前挡风玻璃突然爆破,林志圻因爆震伤经医院抢救无效而死亡。交通管理部门经现场勘查后认定,此次事故不属于交通事故。事故发生后,为查明玻璃爆破的原因,被告三菱公司将破碎的玻璃运至玻璃的生产厂日本旭硝子株式会社,委托其鉴定。旭硝子株式会社的鉴定结论为:本次发生挡风玻璃破碎的原因,并非玻璃本身有质量问题,而确属外部因素造成。对此结论,陈梅金、林德鑫不同意。后经莆田车购办委托国家质检中心对损坏的玻璃进行鉴定,得出推断性结论为:前挡风玻璃为夹层玻璃,在不受外力作用下,夹层玻璃自身不会爆裂。
 
 北京市朝阳区人民法院认为:《中华人民共和国民法通则》第一百零六条第二款规定:“公民、法人由于过错……侵害他人财产、人身的,应当承担民事责任。”本案查明的事实不能证明被告三菱公司在林志圻死亡问题上有过错,林志圻的死亡与三菱公司无必然的因果关系。原告陈梅金、林德鑫要求三菱公司赔偿因林志圻死亡所遭受的损失,没有事实根据和法律依据。据此判决:
 驳回原告陈梅金、林德鑫要求被告三菱公司赔偿损失人民币50万元的诉讼请求。
 案件受理费10010元,由原告陈梅金、林德鑫负担。
 原告陈梅金、林德鑫不服一审判决,向北京市第二中级人民法院提起上诉称:1、正如原审法院认定的:汽车前挡风玻璃突然爆破,林志圻因爆震伤经抢救无效死亡。这说明林志圻在乘车死亡问题上本身无过错,其死亡与汽车前挡风玻璃突然爆破有关,因果关系是明确的。2、被告未经许可私自将挡风玻璃运往日本的玻璃生产厂家进行鉴定,是错误的,该鉴定结论无效,不能做为定案的依据。后被告虽将玻璃由日本运回北京,但运回的玻璃是否为事故车上的那一块,已经无法确定。且该玻璃送至质检中心时已经碎成一个平面,无法进行玻璃强度试验和爆破原因分析。质检中心在此情况下仅凭几张玻璃破损照片而得出一个推断性结论,这个结论不应成为定案的根据。3、即使按玻璃生产厂家的两次鉴定结论和国家质检中心的结论,也只是说该挡风玻璃不受外力作用不会爆破,但都没有说明是受了何种外力。如果所受外力是正常合理的外力,这证明玻璃的爆破还是属于质量问题,被告依法还应当承担赔偿责任。4、现在原物破损,证据丢失,举证责任应当转移由被告承担。被告在原审期间主张再用同批号的其他前挡风玻璃交由质检中心去进行实物鉴定,是不合理的。种类物与特定物不可能等同,即使同期同批中其他的玻璃经鉴定没有质量问题,也不等于爆破的这一块没有质量问题。如果被告除此以外再不能举证,应当承担举证不能的法律后果。
 被上诉人三菱公司答辩认为:1、涉及本案的三个鉴定结论,至少由上诉人陈梅金、林德鑫选定的鉴定单位国家质检中心所做的鉴定结论,应该成为定案的根据。2、挡风玻璃的生产厂家原已根据被上诉人提交的前挡风玻璃破损照片制作出第一份鉴定报告。因车主莆田车购办对仅用照片没有实物进行鉴定提出异议,被上诉人本着对用户负责的精神,才把破损玻璃运往日本进行鉴定。被上诉人根本不是私自将玻璃运往日本,不能因此承担举证不能的法律责任。3、事实证明事故车的玻璃不存在产品缺陷,依照中华人民共和国的法律,不应当由被上诉人承担产品责任。原审判决认定事实清楚,适用法律正确,应当维持。
 
 北京市第二中级人民法院经审理查明:1996年9月13日晨,林志圻乘坐由本单位(莆田车购办)司机刘文彬驾驶的三菱越野吉普车前往福州市。林志圻坐在副驾驶座位上,林志圻的哥哥林志仁坐在后座。7:02时左右,当该车以时速90--100公里通过福厦公路没边村路段时,林志圻面前的挡风玻璃突然爆破,形成口杯大小的一个洞。此时,林志圻已处于昏迷状态,车便停靠在路边,刘文彬、林志仁二人将林志圻从车上抬下,雇一辆车送往福建省武警总医院抢救。
 ......

Dear visitor, you are attempting to view a subscription-based section of lawinfochina.com. If you are already a subscriber, please login to enjoy access to our databases. If you are not a subscriber, you can pay for a document through Online Pay and read it immediately after payment.
An entity user can apply for a trial account or contact us for your purchase.
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570712
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail: database@chinalawinfo.com

 
您好:您现在要进入的是北大法律英文网会员专区。
如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录,进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息;如您还不是我们 的英文用户;您可通过网上支付进行单篇购买,支付成功后即可立即查看本篇内容;
单位用户可申请试用或者来电咨询购买。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570712
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:database@chinalawinfo.com
     
     
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝en.pkulaw.cn
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
 
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code
 
  Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.

Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.

We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
 
Home | About us | Disclaimer | Chinese