Well-known lawyers claim that Kumho Tires' own identification does not have legal effect

According to Jiang Suhua, a member of the China Consumer Association's lawyers group and Beijing Kaiya Law Firm, the “self-identification” of the company belongs to the category of civil disputes. This appraisal does not have legal effect and can only be used for consultation and communication with consumers.

Looking back, Kumho Tire has already had a safety accident in the United States before it entered the Chinese market. Unlike the "self-identification" of domestic tire companies, the identification results of US tire experts have played a decisive role in the trial of tire accidents. They have even become the classic case of law, and they have become many legal institutions including Cornell University Law School. School tutorials.

According to Jiang Suhua, a member of the China Consumer Association's lawyers group and Beijing Kaiya Law Firm, this case has implications for the Chinese consumers' complaints about the safety hazards of Kumho Tires. The results of Kumho Tires' own identification have no legal effect.

Kumho tires in the United States

On July 6, 1993, when Patrick Carmichael was driving a small truck, a popping occurred in the right rear wheel, causing a passenger to die and many people were injured. The victim filed a lawsuit in the court and demanded that tire manufacturer and seller Kumho Tire (Kumho Tire Co., Ltd., Korea) be held responsible.

The plaintiff believes that there are manufacturing or design flaws in the tires, and its claim is based on the expert opinion provided by Dennis Carlson. In the testimony he provided to the court, he came to the conclusion based on empirical theory that he had observed and touched the tire. He concluded that the tire burst was not caused by improper use of a kind of excessive deflection, or due to manufacturing defects.

According to Dennis Carlson's testimony, overloading and under-inflation can cause local heating of the tire or rupture of the tread, resulting in excessive deflection. If the tire is broken due to excessive deflection, there are usually four distinct physical features. When Dennis Carlson examined the tires, he discovered two clearly inadequate physical features. Therefore, Dennis Carlson believes that the tire burst is not caused by improper use, but caused by manufacturing or design defects.

Kumho has filed an objection requesting the exclusion of expert evidence provided by Dennis Carlson because it does not meet the requirements of Section 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

The District Court upheld Kumho’s claim but the Circuit Court of Appeal overturned the District Court’s decision. In March 1999, the Supreme Court’s decision held that the federal district court had the “gatekeeper’s” obligation to ensure that expert evidence was sufficiently reliable. This rule applies to all experts, not just scientists. Therefore, in the admissibility of expert evidence, the accident of Kumho Tire became an important precedent in the US legal system.

"Self-certification" result is invalid

Unlike US consumers who sue the tire companies, at present, China's tire complaints are still mainly focused on consumers' complaints about the quality of tire products to tire companies, and rarely rise to the level of legal proceedings. However, in consumer complaints collected from public sources, including Kumho Tires, tire companies’ “self-identification” results almost always pointed to the presence of driving mistakes while the vehicle owner was driving.

After the AQSIQ revealed that Kumho Tire had bulging and side cracking problems, the official statement issued by Kumho Tire still listed consumers as the main responsibility for causing tire bulging. The statement stated that “because the current professional tire knowledge is not yet very popular, and the general owner’s understanding and understanding of the tire is not deep enough, he will first worry about whether it is a quality issue”.

The statement mentioned that the business offices throughout the country that received complaints from Kumho Company will send technical service managers to conduct on-site inspections and issue identification documents. The entire process strictly complied with the relevant provisions of the “Administrative Measures for Auto Tire Claims Work”.

Article 6 of the "Administrative Measures for Automobile Tire Claims Work" stipulates that due to the arrangement of the cords, the shoulder and side drums caused by inflation are quality problems. At the same time, Article 7 shows that due to improper driving, the tire hits other objects, causing various crown explosions, crown piercing, shoulder blasts, side bursts, and pattern cracks. However, it is not mentioned in the management measures as to how the quality of tires such as bulges and side cracks will be tested and verified. This also gives tire companies a “self-identification” with natural advantages.

According to Jiang Suhua, a member of the China Consumer Association's lawyers group and Beijing Kaiya Law Firm, the “self-identification” of the company belongs to the category of civil disputes. This appraisal does not have legal effect and can only be used for consultation and communication with consumers. In spite of this, the conclusion drawn by the company's “self-identification” also needs to be acknowledged by consumers. If the consumer does not recognize the assessment report, the company’s “self-identification” has no legal value.

Chinese consumers have difficulty defending their rights

Article 64 of the "Civil Procedure Law" clearly stipulates: "The parties are responsible for providing evidence for their claims," ​​ie "who advocates and who gives evidence." However, in the case of tire complaints, the cost of evidence is too high for consumers, which has become an important reason for the difficulty of rights protection.

According to the Regulations for the Management of Automobile Tire Claims formulated by the Tire Division of the China Rubber Industry Association and implemented on August 1, 1999, consumers may appeal when consumers object to the “self-assessment of product quality” of the tire manufacturer. And commissioned by the statutory quality inspection and inspection departments with the means and ability to identify, the National Rubber Tire Quality Supervision and Inspection Center for the final identification.

Qingdao City, Product Quality Supervision and Inspection Institute, Rubber and Plastics Machinery Department, National Tire and Rubber Products Quality Supervision and Inspection Center, Anyin told reporters that the center is mainly engaged in the details of the tire product inspection, tire bulging and other issues of the appraisal The accreditation center is responsible.

However, the person in charge of the appraisal center had said, “The appraisal of tires with bulges, cracks, etc. is very complicated. Since the used tires are difficult to recover, the opinions of tire experts are even more important.”