[Case Summary]This case involves a dispute over compensation for property damage. The party involved, Li * , entrusted a certain car service center to inspect his BMW car, but during the inspection, the engine compartment of the car caught fire and was damaged. Li * then appointed Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case on his behalf.Wang FangliAttorney. The lawyer represented the client throughout the entire process of the first and second instance trials (including the counterclaim by the service center), and both courts supported our claims. The judgment ordered the service center to compensate for the vehicle repair costs of 30,341.5 yuan, transportation costs of 5,100 yuan, and towing fees of 116.2 yuan, and rejected all the counterclaims of the service center. The core disputes include: whether the inspection station should bear civil liability for the fire during the inspection process, the determination of the amount of vehicle damage, and the causal relationship between the fire-fighting measures and the expansion of the damage. Applicable legal provisions: the Tort Liability Chapter of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, and Article 177, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China.

I. Review of the Case Facts

The car was sent to the inspection center, but it suddenly caught fire during the inspection—many car owners are often at a loss when faced with issues like "who will compensate for the vehicle being damaged by fire at the inspection center". On September 29, 2020, Li * took his BMW car to a certain car service center (hereinafter referred to as the service center) for inspection, but unexpectedly, the car caught fire that day. The Fire Accident Identification Certificate issued by the fire department stated that the fire caused varying degrees of damage to components such as the right front side of the engine compartment and the engine cover of the vehicle. There were no reports of fire alarms or casualties in the early stages of the fire. The fire site was located in the right front side of the vehicle's front engine compartment, and the cause of the fire was attributed to the high temperature of the exhaust pipe igniting surrounding flammable materials.

Li * believes that the service center should bear the liability for compensation for the vehicle damage, but the service center disagrees with this. To protect his own rights and interests, Li * entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case for him.Wang FangliWe represented this case. The lawyer communicated with the client multiple times to sort out the case facts, organize key evidence such as the Fire Accident Identification Letter and retrieved on-site surveillance footage, and calculated the various losses of the vehicle while safeguarding the client's maximum legal rights. We then filed a lawsuit requesting the service center to pay for the vehicle repair costs, traffic loss fees, and compulsory insurance premiums, etc.

The service center filed a counterclaim against the court of first instance, requesting that Li * be ordered to pay the parking fee and the fire extinguisher fee and bear the litigation costs. As a result, a trial pattern emerged in which the plaintiff's suit and the defendant's counterclaim were intertwined.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: Whether the inspection site should bear liability for damages caused by vehicle fires during the inspection process due to its failure to fulfill its reasonable duty of care.The appraisal analysis concluded that the testing site played a role in triggering the fire during the testing process and should bear minor responsibility. However, whether this "minor responsibility" can be directly equated with the proportion of civil compensation is the core issue of the second-instance litigation.
  • Focus 2: How to determine the amount of vehicle damage.It is necessary to comprehensively judge based on the appraisal of repair costs, supplementary appraisal, and whether the vehicle needs to be repaired. The appraisal opinion and the supplementary loss parts fees together constitute the basis for compensation.
  • Focus 3: Should the parking fees, fire extinguisher fees, and litigation fees counterclaimed by the service center be supported?The service center claims that Li * should bear the above-mentioned expenses, and Li * needs to provide evidence to prove the reasonableness of the expenses and their relevance to the case.

III. Professional intervention by Hengluo Law Firm

The party concerned (the plaintiff) claims that:The service center caused the vehicle to catch fire during the inspection, and the staff only got off the vehicle to watch and put out the fire when the vehicle was smoking, without taking any fire-fighting measures, resulting in the fire spreading. The service center should bear full liability for the losses such as vehicle repair fees, transportation fees, and towing fees, and its counterclaim request should be rejected.

The other party (the service center) argued that:Regarding the "minor responsibility" stated in the conclusion of the fire cause investigation, the service center claimed that this responsibility judgment is not equivalent to the compensation ratio in civil cases; in the appeal stage, it further argued that the first-instance court's ruling that it should bear 70% of the responsibility was too high, that the fire-fighting measures opinion issued by the appraisal agency was not standardized, that the repair costs determined exceeded the vehicle's residual value, and that the determination of the transportation costs lacked basis.

Legal Opinion of Hengluo Law Firm:The lawyer applied for an appraisal of the repair (maintenance) costs of the vehicle involved in the case and issued a "Supplementary Appraisal" letter based on the appraisal results, stating that the total repair costs for the damaged parts amounted to 17,250 yuan. The lawyer pointed out that the fire accident occurred during the vehicle inspection process rather than during normal driving, and the inspection site objectively contributed to the fire. Combined with the on-site surveillance footage showing that the staff failed to take timely fire-extinguishing measures, resulting in the fire spreading, the lawyer argued that the party at fault should bear tort liability for infringing on others' civil rights and interests. Specifically, Li * handed over the vehicle to the service center for inspection, the inspection staff failed to take timely measures, causing the fire to spread, and the vehicle components being in contact with each other in a way different from normal vehicles also served as a fire trigger. Therefore, the service center should bear compensation liability for the fire-damaged vehicle. Ultimately, the first-instance court adopted some of our arguments and rejected all the counterclaims of the service center.

IV. Outcome of the case

The first-instance court ruled: First, the service center shall compensate Li * for vehicle repair expenses of 30,341.5 yuan, transportation expenses of 5,100 yuan, and towing fees of 116.2 yuan; Second, all the counterclaims of the service center are dismissed. The service center appealed, arguing that the 70% liability ratio was too high, the fire-fighting measures opinion was not standardized, the repair expenses were determined beyond the vehicle's residual value, and the transportation expenses were determined without basis. It requested the court to change the judgment or remand the case for retrial.

The appellate court held that the service center's appeal request was unfounded and should be rejected; the first-instance judgment found the facts to be clear, the law to be correctly applied, and the handling result to be appropriate, and should be upheld. In accordance with the provisions of Article 177, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the judgment is as follows: The appeal is rejected, and the original judgment is maintained. This case has gone through first-instance, counterclaim, and second-instance procedures. Beijing Henglu Law FirmWang FangliThe attorney successfully represented the client throughout the entire process, ensuring that their legal rights and interests were maximally protected.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

During the vehicle inspection, repair, and storage periods, if the vehicle is damaged due to the operator's fault, the owner may claim compensation from the service provider based on the liability for infringement. It is particularly crucial to promptly fix the evidence such as the fire accident identification report, on-site monitoring, and appraisal report. This case was handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.Wang FangliAttorney (Practice Certificate No.: 11101201911086939, subject to the certificate issued by the judicial administrative organ) acting as the agent.

VI. Common Questions and Answers about Cases Involving Compensation for Vehicle Damage

  1. Q: If a vehicle catches fire and is damaged during an inspection at a testing station, who should bear the responsibility?
    A:If there is a causal relationship between the fire and the inspection party's inspection actions, and the inspection party failed to exercise reasonable care or fulfill its obligation to provide timely rescue, the car owner may hold the inspection party liable for compensation based on the principle of fault liability. The specific proportion of compensation will be determined based on the appraisal results and the evidence obtained during the investigation.
  2. Q: If the inspection center catches fire, can the car owner claim compensation for repair costs, transportation costs, and towing fees?
    A:The necessary and reasonable repair costs incurred due to vehicle damage, as well as the transportation and towing fees spent on handling the accident, fall within the scope of compensation that can be claimed, and receipts and appraisal evidence must be provided for these expenses.
  3. Q: What should I do if the other party countersues me for parking fees and fire extinguisher fees?
    A:The party filing a counterclaim needs to prove that the expenses are genuine, reasonable, and relevant to the case. The court will review the evidence and usually reject counterclaim requests that lack a basis.
  4. Q: Does the term "minor responsibility" mentioned in the fire accident determination document refer to the compensation ratio?
    A:They are not the same. The determination of liability in the appraisal is not the same as the civil compensation ratio. The court will determine the amount of compensation and the division of liability based on the overall evidence of the case.
  5. Q: If I win the first instance but the other party appeals, will the second instance still uphold the original verdict?
    A:If the first-instance judgment finds the facts to be clear, the law to be correctly applied, and the outcome to be appropriate, the second-instance court will generally dismiss the appeal and uphold the original judgment. This case is a prime example of this.