An 18-year-old boy, Xiaolei, from Jiangsu, China, tragically lost his life due to a fatal explosion caused by charging six batteries at home. This incident gained widespread attention and made headlines on December 31st.
According to reports from mainland China, Xiaolei purchased a second-hand electric car through a certain online platform. Twelve days after the purchase, the electric car exploded while being charged overnight at his home, resulting in the devastating outcome.
The first person to notice the abnormality in the battery was Xiaolei’s grandfather. Even though he had unplugged the charger after the battery was fully charged, the battery continued to make a sizzling sound. When Xiaolei checked it in the morning, the battery exploded, causing severe burns all over his body. Despite being hospitalized for two days and undergoing treatment, Xiaolei succumbed to his injuries. His grandparents, who were in the bedroom at the time of the explosion, sustained minor burns on their faces.
Xiaolei’s medical records detailed the extent of his injuries, indicating severe burns on multiple areas of his body due to the electric car explosion. The injuries resulted in intense pain, with extensive third-degree and second-degree burns covering over 90% of his body surface, as well as respiratory burns. After being admitted to the hospital, Xiaolei went into shock and experienced multiple organ failures, putting his life in critical condition.
Two days later, while being transferred to another hospital, Xiaolei tragically passed away in the ambulance.
Investigations revealed that the electric car involved had changed hands six times before Xiaolei acquired it, making him the seventh owner. Furthermore, the car had been illegally modified, including alterations to the battery, controller, headlights, and body shell, with the original lead-acid battery being replaced by a lithium battery.
Following the incident, Xiaolei’s family filed a lawsuit against six sellers and the repair shop owner, holding all seven defendants accountable for compensation.
In the court proceedings reported by “Nanjing Zero Distance,” each defendant argued that the cause of the explosion was unclear, and therefore, they should not bear responsibility.
The first owner, Lai, stated that he had initially purchased a branded car from a repair shop and subsequently commissioned the shop owner, Feng, to carry out comprehensive modifications on the electric car, including replacing the lead-acid battery with a lithium one.
The court, in its judgment, acknowledged that the fire resulted in severe injuries to Xiaolei, leading to his unfortunate demise. The fire department determined the origin of the fire to be underneath the battery of the electric bicycle purchased by Xiaolei, attributing the cause to a possible battery malfunction.
Ultimately, the court ruled that the seven defendants, responsible for assembling, modifying, and reselling the vehicle, collectively bear 40% liability, while Xiaolei is deemed to bear the remaining 60% responsibility.
The court’s verdict sparked heated discussions among netizens, with some expressing doubts and criticisms.
“Hope_UnderTheStars_Beijing”: Blaming the former owner without addressing the root cause, where’s the logic in that?
“断桥miss遇广东佛山”: The crucial point is that the battery manufacturer completely escapes accountability, shifting all responsibility onto the buyer.
“母甸裱糊线上人吉林吉林市”: Manufacturers are not held accountable, sellers are not held accountable, those who approve the product launch are not accountable, even the tax collectors are not accountable – it’s all the buyer’s responsibility.