In order to save money, a resident of Yulin City, Shaanxi Province, spent 4.5 yuan to purchase a windproof cover online that claimed to “save half of the gas”, only to find out that his wife and 16-year-old son died about a month after using it. This case has once again attracted attention recently.
In April of this year, the first-instance court determined that the insufficient combustion of the gas stove due to the installation of the energy-gathering ring released carbon monoxide, leading to the deaths of the two individuals, and ordered the manufacturers, sellers, and e-commerce platforms to take corresponding responsibilities. Recently, the second-instance court upheld the original judgment.
According to a report by Red Star News, Mr. Lu and his wife Mrs. Liu had two sons. The family lived in a rented house in a county town in Yulin, preparing for their younger son’s high school entrance examination. Mrs. Liu worked at a local supermarket, while Mr. Lu went out to do transportation escort work in the winter of 2023 to raise money for their elder son’s wedding and younger son’s education expenses.
Mr. Lu recalled that in November 2023, he came across a gas stove windproof cover on an e-commerce platform, which claimed to save gas by half and increase the flame, promoting it as a cost-saving product. The price was affordable at 4.5 yuan. By January 2024, the link to the product purchased by Mr. Lu showed a record of 68 units sold.
At that time, he thought, “It’s not expensive, it’s quite useful, and can save a lot of gas. In life, you have to think long-term and save bit by bit.”
This product, known as the “energy-gathering ring” or “energy-saving ring”, is placed around the gas stove burner. The seller claimed that it could concentrate the flame and save gas.
The court documents revealed that around early December 2023, Mr. Lu and his family began experiencing symptoms like dizziness, nausea, vomiting, and lethargy.
Mrs. Liu had also complained that the house became very suffocating after using the energy-gathering ring, with a strong dry pot odor lingering.
On the morning of December 25th, Mr. Lu received calls from the supermarket and school, informing him that neither his wife nor his younger son had been seen. He asked the landlord to check on them. The landlord recalled that at that time, the windows were tightly closed. After breaking in, he found the boy lying on the bed, and Mrs. Liu slumped over on the table, both without breath or heartbeat. The gas stove was still on, with a small flame, and the kettle on the stove had been burned dry. Surveillance footage from the bedroom showed that the boy appeared to be unconscious around 8 p.m. on December 24th.
The police report issued that day indicated that the cause of death for the two individuals was “death from natural gas poisoning.”
Following the tragedy, Mr. Lu began to suspect that the cause was not a gas pipe leak, but rather the 4.5 yuan energy-gathering ring.
On the day of the incident, when the natural gas company conducted an on-site inspection, no leaks were found in the gas meter joint, gas pipeline joints, or gas facilities.
During the trial, Mr. Lu applied for an appraisal.
The appraisal results showed that without installing the energy-gathering ring, the carbon monoxide concentration generated during the combustion of the gas stove met the relevant standards. However, after the installation of the energy-gathering ring, the carbon monoxide concentration generated by the left burner did not meet the standard requirements.
Based on this, the court concluded that the energy-saving ring was indeed installed on the stove, and the entire family had experienced discomfort and sought medical attention after its installation. No other fatal conditions were found in the household surveillance, and combined with similar poisoning cases in various places, the court made its decision.
The liability proportions in the first-instance judgment were: 40% for the manufacturer, around 860,000 yuan; 30% for the seller, around 650,000 yuan; and the e-commerce platform, jointly responsible with the seller for failing to take necessary measures and provide risk reminders. The deceased and their family were allocated 30% of the responsibility, as the court believed they purchased non-original accessories, continued to use them after experiencing discomfort, and installed them without proper ventilation in the cold winter.
The natural gas company fulfilled its duty of on-site inspection and notification on the day of the incident, while the landlord fulfilled the obligations of the lessor, and neither of them were held liable for compensation. Both the family of the deceased, the manufacturer, the seller, and the platform have filed appeals, and the second instance upheld the original judgment.
The family’s legal representative, Ge Yuan, believes that the manufacturer and seller should bear more responsibility, and the family may appeal in the future. He suggested that the platform review the seller’s promotions, prohibit promoting for household use scenarios or clearly mark that they are not for household use. He also hoped for mandatory certification for such products in the future.