4hw.com.cn, for many people who like health preservation, do they often like to soak their feet at night? But I didn't expect that there was a great hidden danger in the bucket. Ms. Gu's fire happened at home. According to the fire department, the cause of the fire was the internal fault of the bucket. Ms. Gu sued e-commerce and manufacturers to the court for more than 58000 yuan. The court of first instance ordered the defendant to compensate 756 yuan for the purchase cost. If the three parties are not satisfied, they shall file an appeal. Yesterday, the case opened in the second middle court.
On February 5, 2016, during the process of heating the water supply, Ms. Gu suddenly exploded the bucket and caused a fire. According to the fire investigation, the fire was caused by the internal failure of the foot bath barrel. Ms. Gu said that she communicated with the platform and the manufacturer by telephone, but both parties shirked their responsibilities and did not solve the problem. Therefore, it is sued to the court.
In the first instance, the defendant's e-commerce platform argued that it was not the seller. She has fulfilled the reasonable obligation of examination and publicity, and does not know that the product involved has defects and quality problems, so she is not a qualified defendant. Ms. Gu's claim has nothing to do with the platform, so she requests the court to reject the plaintiff's claim.
The manufacturer of the bucket argued that the bucket had no trademark. Even if it is sold by the company, there is no quality problem with the foot bath barrel. The fire accident is not caused by the foot bath barrel of the company. At the same time, Ms. Gu claimed that there was no factual basis for the loss of house decoration, the plaintiff did not provide relevant information about the articles, and there was no basis for claiming compensation.
According to the court, the fire department determined that the fire was caused by an internal failure of the bucket. As a producer and seller, the manufacturer should take the responsibility and compensate Ms. Gu. The e-commerce platform did not submit evidence to prove that it was not the seller, so it was determined that it actually participated in the sales process of the bucket involved in the case and shared the responsibility with the manufacturer.
At the same time, because the plaintiff failed to provide evidence to prove the specific value of the loss caused by the fire, it did not apply for value assessment. Therefore, the court awarded Ms. Gu 756 yuan to the two defendants in the first trial. After the judgment, all three parties were not satisfied and appealed.
Yesterday, the case opened in the second instance of Beijing second middle court. The plaintiff said that it did not apply for appraisal and only applied for loss assessment at that time. Later, because of the long time, the evaluation was withdrawn. Because the fire brigade issued the fire identification, which is the basis.
At the end of the trial, Ms. Gu said that the amount could be compromised, and proposed that the e-commerce platform compensate 5000 yuan and the manufacturer compensate 30000 yuan, but the defendant disagreed. The judge said that he would choose a sentence.