Noun explanation:
Punitive damages refer to damages awarded by the court to the infringed person by the civil subject who violates the civil law, which exceeds the actual loss.
An old American woman burned her leg by drinking hot coffee while driving, but she successfully won McDonald's and received millions of compensation. This story is familiar to everyone in China.
The old lady who won McDonald's case is Stella, and there is an award named after her in the United States, which is awarded to the plaintiff's lawyer and jury in the most successful and absurd lawsuit every year. The most famous award-winning case is Mr Marv Griesing of Oklahoma.
Genius bought a brand-new 9-meter station wagon (RV with bed, bathroom and kitchen). On the highway home, he set the autopilot at 120km/h and left the driver's seat to make coffee in the back. Finally, there was a big car accident. Fortunately, the man was still alive, and sued the automobile manufacturer, and got compensation of $654.38+$7500, plus a new car, on the grounds that the car manual did not say: you can't leave the driver's seat to make coffee in the back.
After the case happened, the manufacturer really added this item to the manual.
God is dead.
In the famous "McDonald's coffee burn case", the actual loss suffered by the old lady Estella was only $20 thousand. The jury awarded the defendant punitive damages of up to $2.7 million. According to American law, as long as the defendant commits a fraudulent, intentional, malicious or serious illegal act, punitive damages can be applied, and the amount of compensation can be much higher than the actual economic loss or mental damage of the victim.
1999 general motors of the United States knew that there was something wrong with the design of the fuel tank, but for the benefit of it, it did not modify it in time, resulting in serious burns to six people. The court ordered GM to pay $654.38 billion in compensatory damages and $4.8 billion in punitive damages. This kind of punitive damages is aimed at large enterprises and protects vulnerable groups, aiming at severely punishing the subjective malice and immorality of the infringer, so as to set an example for others.
In the United States from 17 to 18, punitive damages were mainly applied to cases such as slander, seduction, malicious attacks, etc., which caused the victim to suffer reputation loss and mental pain. After entering the 20th century, large companies and enterprises have flourished, and consumer damage cases caused by various defective goods have also occurred frequently. With deep pockets, it is difficult for large companies to curb the risk of manufacturing and selling unqualified or even dangerous goods in pursuit of profits by compensating consumers. As a result, punitive damages are gradually applied to the field of product liability, and the amount of compensation is also increasing.
Domestic consumers are not so lucky.
After the "Zier fake medicine incident" and "Sanlu milk powder incident", the helplessness of Chinese consumers is all highlighted in the pale legal provisions, and the public's eager attention to the punitive damages system once again evokes people's memories of an incredible notebook dispute case ten years ago.
1In August 1997, wang hong bought a laptop from Hengsheng. Because of the quality problem of the computer, he had a dispute with the manufacturer, and many negotiations failed. Wang hong consciously fell for it, and posted an article on the Internet, "Please see the process of Hengsheng buying a laptop". As soon as this article came out, there were countless posts. Hengsheng believes that wang hong has violated the company's reputation and filed a lawsuit. On June 5438+February 65438+February 9, 2000, Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court made a final judgment, and the defendant paid 90,000 yuan to Hengsheng Company. 2001March 12, the defendant was detained for "refusing to execute the judgment" because he was unable to pay the compensation. In the end, the lawyer representing wang hong for free raised 90,000 yuan from many sympathizers and handed it over to the court. Just two days before "Consumer Protection Day", this unlucky consumer saw the light of day again.
This judgment caused a great sensation when the Internet was in the ascendant in China ten years ago. Emerging netizens believe that this judgment is the biggest challenge to the freedom of online speech. On the day of the final judgment, Hengsheng's website was marked with "Win the lawsuit and lose the world" in white on a black background. On the day wang hong was detained, another netizen borrowed Nietzsche's famous saying-"God is dead".
One year after the verdict, Hengsheng disappeared from consumers' sight. After winning the lawsuit, the market gave it the most severe punishment.
Punitive damages for imports
Ten years later, for many ordinary people in China, punitive damages are still a strange and powerless word, and people's more popular understanding of compensation is the problem of overpaying and underpaying.
Punitive damages system has not been clearly defined in our laws until the promulgation of 1993 Law on the Protection of Consumers' Rights and Interests. Article 49 of the law stipulates: "If a business operator commits fraud in providing goods or services, it shall increase the compensation for the losses it has suffered according to the requirements of consumers, and the increased amount shall be twice the price of the goods purchased or the cost of receiving services." This provision draws lessons from the punitive damages system of Anglo-American law, and it is also the only punitive clause in China law so far.
People have different views on the determination of fraud.
At present, Article 68 of the Supreme People's Court's Opinions on Several Issues Concerning the Implementation of the General Principles of the Civil Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) (for Trial Implementation) stipulates: "If one party intentionally informs the other party of false information, or intentionally conceals the true information to induce the other party to make a wrong expression of intention, it can be considered as fraud."
1996 03 15 Article 2 of the Measures for Punishment of Consumer Fraud issued by the State Administration for Industry and Commerce stipulates: "Consumer fraud as mentioned in this Law refers to the act of business operators deceiving and misleading consumers by false or other improper means and harming their legitimate rights and interests when providing goods or services." Therefore, fraud not only includes the operator actively fabricating false information or distorting facts, but also deliberately concealing real information and having the obligation to inform consumers but not telling them.
However, on the question of whether to introduce punitive damages system, some legal experts think: "Punitive damages are a typical practice in Britain and the United States, which is inconsistent with the civil law concept of civil law countries, and China does not need to follow suit."
Because of this, it is difficult to introduce punitive damages system in China.
Fine and grab their boots.
On the other hand, in China, the call for legal trial of corporate violations has been higher than moral trial.
However, when consumers think that the amount of compensation stipulated in the Consumer Law is not enough to make up for their own losses, but want to get more compensation, they have to choose a long and high-cost road of litigation rights protection. Because of this, many consumers give up rights protection, and some enterprises continue to take risks.
However, a recent news is enough to cheer consumers up.
In the revised draft of the Food Safety Law, the law of "ten times price compensation" has been introduced. This is obviously a step further than the double return in the elimination method.
It has also been suggested that the introduction of punitive damages in the forthcoming civil code is more conducive to the implementation of this system.
What is worth looking forward to is that China scholars have drafted two versions of the Civil Code Tort Liability Law, both of which introduced punitive damages. The first edition stipulates that if a person intentionally infringes on another person's life, body, personal freedom, health or sentimental property, the court may order the offender to pay punitive damages not exceeding three times the compensation. The second edition stipulates that if the product is defective due to the intentional or gross negligence of the producer or seller, causing personal and property damage to others, the victim may request the producer or seller to double the compensation.
However, compared with punitive damages in common law system, such provisions are still a drop in the bucket.
One of the important reasons why cases of fake and shoddy food and toxic food have emerged in an endless stream in recent years is that the compensation mechanism lacks deterrence. The cost of protecting the rights and interests of consumers and victims is very high. In judicial practice, only the actual loss is awarded, regardless of the time and energy spent by the victim. Due to the lack of punitive damages, the illegal cost of offenders is very low, and the standard of compensatory damages is far from enough to resist their greed of making and selling unsafe food and problem products for profit.
Countless facts tell us that only by raising the illegal cost of enterprises can we protect the fair competition of law-abiding enterprises. Only by being afraid of litigation can manufacturers pay attention to product quality and not take big risks for small profits.