The prosperity of quality leads to the prosperity of economy, and the strong quality leads to the strong industry. Quality is an important guarantee for human production and life, which is not only related to the vital interests of the people, but also to the overall situation of high-quality economic and social development. Since the Eighteenth National Congress of the CPC, under the strong leadership of the CPC Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping as its core, China's quality cause has achieved leapfrog development, the construction of a strong quality country has achieved historic results, and the people's sense of quality has been significantly enhanced. General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out that "quality embodies the creation of human labor and the crystallization of wisdom, and reflects people's yearning for a better life", "we must better coordinate the effective improvement of quality and the rational growth of quantity, always adhere to quality first, give priority to efficiency, vigorously enhance quality awareness, regard quality as life, and pursue high quality." This provides a fundamental follow-up for us to do a good job in quality work. In February 2023, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the State Council issued the Outline of Building a Strong Quality Country, which made it clear that building a strong quality country is an important measure to promote high-quality development and the transformation of China's economy from big to strong, and an important way to meet the people's needs for a better life.

　　The Supreme People's Court adheres to the guidance of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, implements Xi Jinping Thought on the Rule of Law, adheres to the people-centered approach, and clarifies product quality responsibilities by formulating judicial interpretations and policies and issuing typical cases, so as to help improve product quality, protect the safety of people's lives and property, and serve the high-quality development of the economy and society. In December 2013, the Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Food and Drug Disputes were formulated, which stipulated the quality and safety of food and drugs and the quality responsibility of gifts. In December 2020, the Interpretation of Several Questions Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Disputes over food safety (1) was formulated, which stipulates the label responsibility of producers and operators, the first responsibility system and the responsibility of platform operators, so as to protect the "safety on the tip of the tongue" of the people. In March 2022, the Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Online Consumption Disputes (I) were formulated, which stipulated the application of the seven-day no-reason return system, the responsibility of operators of e-commerce platforms, the responsibility of online live marketing platforms, and the quality and safety of takeaway catering, so as to strengthen the judicial protection of the quality of goods and services under the background of digital economy. In December 2022, the Opinions on Providing Judicial Services and Guarantees for Promoting Consumption were formulated to punish illegal and criminal acts such as the production and sale of fake seeds, fertilizers and pesticides according to law. In August 2024, the Interpretation of Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Food and Drug Punitive Compensation Disputes was formulated to protect food and drug safety and the legitimate rights and interests of consumers, and to serve and ensure the sustained and healthy development of the economy and society. The Supreme People's Court has also published typical cases of consumer rights protection, typical cases of online consumption, typical cases of "cracking down on fake agricultural materials", typical cases of judicial protection of food safety involving minors, and typical cases of punitive damages for food safety, so as to effectively safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of consumers and other subjects and help build a strong quality country.

　　In order to fully implement the spirit of the 20th National Congress of the CPC and the 2nd and 3rd Plenary Sessions of the 20th Central Committee of the CPC, implement the deployment of the Outline for Building a Strong Quality Country, continue to do a good job in guaranteeing judicial services for quality improvement, and protect the legitimate rights and interests of consumers, rural contractors and other subjects according to law, the Supreme People's Court has collected cases from the national courts. It was released during the National "Quality Month" in September 2024, covering food safety protection, quality protection of agricultural assets, supporting administrative organs to exercise quality supervision according to law, and protecting the rights of victims of defective products. The typical case released this time has the following four characteristics:

　　First, it is close to the production and life of the masses.Among the published cases, case 1 and case 5 involve the quality and safety of fireworks and firecrackers, food quality and safety, and case 2, case 3 and case 4 involve the quality of products in rural agricultural production and operation, such as "fake fertilizer", "fake seeds" and "problem agricultural machinery". The sixth case involves the safety production and operation accidents caused by the fire caused by the "problem air conditioner". These are the quality and safety problems that people often encounter in living consumption, agricultural production and commercial operation. Typical cases establish the concept of "quality first" in the whole society by giving full play to the functions of standardization and guidance, and protect the quality and safety of products in production, circulation, consumption and the whole process according to law.

　　The second is to consolidate the responsibilities of producers and operators.The typical cases released this time involve not only civil legal liability, but also criminal legal liability and administrative legal liability, not only product quality liability in food and other consumer areas, but also product quality liability in seed, fertilizer, agricultural machinery and other production areas. Case 5 Xie Mou's case of producing and selling food that does not meet safety standards clarifies the rules of judgment that if the production and sale of food that does not meet safety standards constitutes a crime, it should bear criminal responsibility according to law. In violation of the product quality law and other laws and regulations, the production and operation of substandard products or even toxic and harmful products should not only bear civil liability for compensation, but also be subject to administrative and criminal sanctions if the circumstances are bad and the consequences are serious.

　　Third, strengthen the protection of victims' rights and interests.In the case of a product liability dispute between a certain milk shop and a certain fireworks and firecrackers franchise shop, it is clear that the victim who does not directly purchase defective products has the right to request the producer and seller to bear the liability for compensation according to law. According to the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Law on the Protection of the Rights and Interests of Consumers, if personal or property damage is caused by commodity defects, in addition to the right of consumers who have contractual relations with operators to claim compensation from producers or operators, other victims also have the right to claim compensation for losses, and the exemption defense put forward by operators on the grounds that there is no contractual relationship with victims can not be established. In the case of a milk powder shop suing an air-conditioning company for product liability disputes, it is clear that if the air conditioner with quality defects causes losses, the victim can directly request the producer to bear the liability for compensation, except for the seller. In recent years, fire accidents caused by quality defects of electric bicycles, household appliances and other products have been reported frequently. By giving full play to the normative and guiding role of typical cases, producers are urged to strengthen quality control and protect the lives and property of the broad masses of the people.

　　Fourth, service guarantees the development of agriculture, rural areas and farmers.Investigating and dealing with counterfeit and inferior agricultural materials is of great significance for safeguarding farmers'rights and interests, consolidating the agricultural foundation and promoting the overall revitalization of the countryside. Three of the cases released involved the quality protection of agricultural materials such as fertilizers, seeds and agricultural machinery. In the second case of Jingmou v. a Biotechnology Co., Ltd. and Weimou Product Liability Dispute, it is clear that the sale of chemical fertilizers whose active ingredients are seriously inconsistent with the packaging label constitutes consumer fraud and should bear punitive damages; In the third case, a seed store sued a county agricultural and rural Bureau for administrative penalties, which made it clear that if the operator sells fake seeds, the administrative organ has the right to take administrative penalties such as confiscation and fines according to law. In the case of product liability disputes between Sitan Mou and an Agricultural Machinery Sales Co., Ltd., it is clear that the operator is not exempted from liability for damage caused by defects in agricultural machinery because the product has passed the warranty period. After the product has passed the warranty period, the producer and operator shall no longer bear the warranty liability, but shall still be liable for the damage caused by the product defect according to law. Selling fake and shoddy pesticides, fertilizers, seeds and other acts seriously endanger the safety of agricultural production, and the people's courts will severely crack down on them according to law to prevent and curb the harmful acts of entrapping farmers.

　　Next, the Supreme People's Court will continue to strengthen the trial guidance of cases involving product quality, strengthen communication and cooperation with relevant administrative departments, and provide more powerful judicial services and guarantees for the further implementation of the construction of a strong quality country, the improvement of product quality and the realization of high-quality economic and social development.

　　Typical cases involving product quality

　　Case Ⅰ Victims who do not directly purchase defective products have the right to request producers and sellers to bear the liability for compensation according to law.

　　Milk v. Fireworks Store Product Liability Dispute

　　Case Ⅱ If the sale of chemical fertilizers whose active ingredient content is seriously inconsistent with the packaging label constitutes consumer fraud, they shall be liable for punitive damages.

　　Jingmou v. a Biotechnology Co., Ltd. and Weimou Product Liability Dispute

　　Case Ⅲ Operators should be responsible for selling fake seeds without fulfilling the obligation of quality inspection.

　　Administrative penalty case of a seed shopping mall v. a county agricultural and rural Bureau

　　Case IV The operator shall not be exempted from liability for the damage caused by the defect of the product because the product has passed the warranty period.

　　Tan Mou v. Agricultural Machinery Sales Co., Ltd.

　　Case Ⅴ If the manufacture and sale of food that does not meet safety standards constitutes a crime, it shall bear criminal responsibility according to law.

　　Xie Mou's case of producing and selling food that does not meet safety standards

　　Case VI The producers of air-conditioning products should be liable for the losses caused by product defects.

　　Product liability dispute case of a milk powder shop v. an air conditioning company limited

　　Case Ⅰ

　　Victims who do not directly purchase defective products have the right to request producers and sellers to bear the liability for compensation according to law.

　　Milk v. Fireworks Store Product Liability Dispute

　　Basic facts of the case

　　In January 2021, Wu Mou-mou, a relative of Nai Mou-mou, bought a batch of fireworks from a fireworks store. During the discharge process, one of the boxes of firecrackers appeared side spray and dumping phenomenon, resulting in the injury of milk and many people present. His right foot was injured by an explosion and he was hospitalized for 49 days. Due to the failure of negotiation on compensation, Nai sued a fireworks and firecrackers franchise store for compensation for its medical expenses, nursing expenses, nutrition expenses, food allowances, transportation expenses and so on, totaling more than 140000 yuan.

　　Referee result

　　The trial court held that Article 13 of the Product Quality Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates: "Industrial products that may endanger human health and personal and property safety must conform to the national and trade standards for the protection of human health and personal and property safety; where national and trade standards have not been formulated, they must conform to the requirements for the protection of human health and personal and property safety.". It is forbidden to produce or sell industrial products that do not conform to the standards and requirements for safeguarding human health and personal and property safety. The specific administrative measures shall be formulated by the State Council. Article 43 stipulates: "If a defective product causes damage to human life or another person's property, the victim may claim compensation from the producer of the product or from the seller of the product.". Where the liability falls on the producer, but the seller has made the compensation, the seller shall have the right of recourse against the producer. If the liability falls on the seller of the product and the producer of the product makes compensation, the producer of the product shall have the right to recover the compensation from the seller of the product. The national standard "Safety and Quality of Fireworks and Firecrackers" (GB10631-2013) clearly stipulates that fireworks and firecrackers should not be dumped when they are set off, and should meet the requirements of launching deflection angle. In this case, the fireworks involved in the case were sprayed and dumped from the side when they were set off, which did not meet the national standards and had quality defects. When a defective product causes personal or property damage, the victim shall have the right to request the producer and seller to bear the liability. The victim includes not only the person who directly purchases and uses the defective product, but also other persons who do not directly purchase and use the defective product but are damaged by the defective product. Although Nai Mou-mou is not a direct purchaser, he belongs to a person who has been damaged by product defects, and his claim for compensation for personal injury has factual and legal basis. The court ruled that a fireworks and firecrackers store should pay a total of more than 130000 yuan for medical expenses, nursing expenses, nutrition expenses, food allowances, transportation expenses and other losses.

　　Typical significance

　　Product liability is the liability of producers and sellers for personal or property damage caused by product defects. In the tort dispute of defective products, the victim may be either the purchaser of the product or someone other than purchaser. This case confirms that the victim who does not directly purchase and use defective products but is damaged by defective products has the right to claim compensation from the producer and seller of products, which conforms to the law and is of positive significance for urging producers to improve product quality, sellers to sell qualified products and protecting the rights and interests of victims.

　　Case Ⅱ

　　If the sale of chemical fertilizers whose active ingredient content is seriously inconsistent with the packaging label constitutes consumer fraud, they shall be liable for punitive damages.

　　Jingmou v. a Biotechnology Co., Ltd. and Weimou Product Liability Dispute

　　Basic facts of the case

　　In March 2022, Jingmou needed to buy fertilizer for melon planting, and purchased 99 tons of potash fertilizer at a biotechnology company, with a total payment of 435600 yuan. In March 2023, Jingmou believed that the reduction of melon production in 2022 was related to the use of the fertilizer, and then contacted the company to request the quality and composition testing of the above potash fertilizer. On March 28, 2023, a biotechnology limited company appointed personnel and Jingmou jointly commissioned a local product quality supervision and inspection Institute to carry out the inspection, which concluded that the mass fraction of water-soluble potassium oxide was 27%, the mass fraction of sulfur was 12%, and the mass fraction of chloride ion was 13.1%. It does not conform to the provisions of the national standard Potassium Sulfate for Agricultural Use (GB/T20406-2017), and is also seriously inconsistent with the component labels of potassium sulfate ≥ 51%, sulfur ≥ 17% and chloride ion ≤ 1.5% stated on the packaging bag. After many unsuccessful negotiations between Jingmou and a Biotechnology Co., Ltd., Jingmou sued a Biotechnology Co., Ltd. to refund the fertilizer money and pay three times the compensation for the money.

　　Referee result

　　The trial court held that Article 27 of the Product Quality Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates: "The marks on a product or its package must be authentic and meet the following requirements: (1) a product quality inspection certificate; (2) the name of the product, the name and address of the manufacturer in Chinese;"; (3) In accordance with the characteristics and use requirements of the product, if it is necessary to indicate the specifications, grades, names and contents of the main ingredients contained in the product, it shall be indicated in Chinese accordingly; if it is necessary to let consumers know in advance, it shall be indicated on the outer package, or relevant information shall be provided to consumers in advance; (4) The date of production and the period of safe use or the date of expiration shall be clearly marked in a conspicuous place on the product whose use is limited within a specified time; (5) For the product that is likely to cause damage to the product itself or may endanger the safety of human life and property due to improper use, there shall be warning signs or warning instructions in Chinese. Naked food and other naked products that are difficult to label according to the characteristics of the products may not be labeled. Article 36 stipulates: "The marks of the products sold by the seller shall conform to the provisions of Article 27 of this Law." The content of active ingredients of potash fertilizer involved in the case was seriously inconsistent with the packaging label, which violated the law. According to the provisions of Articles 5, 6 and 16 of the Measures for Punishment of Acts Infringing on Consumers'Rights and Interests of the State Administration of Market Supervision and Administration, if an operator sells a commodity in the form of a fake, inferior or false description of the commodity or a commodity standard, it shall be deemed to be a false one. It is fraudulent to mislead consumers by exaggerating the quality and performance of the goods provided and other information that has a significant interest in consumers. In this case, a biotechnology limited company, as the operator of potash fertilizer, did not provide Jingmou with the true information of the product, and the quality and performance indicators such as the content of the active ingredients of the potash fertilizer it sold were seriously inconsistent with the outer packaging label, misleading consumers to buy fertilizer, and its behavior has constituted fraud. Therefore, according to the provisions of Article 55, paragraph 1, and Article 62 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests, a biotechnology limited company was sentenced to return a fertilizer payment and pay three times the compensation for the payment.

　　Typical significance

　　The main purpose of establishing the system of punitive damages for consumer fraud is to punish the fraudulent acts of operators, deter and warn other operators, prevent the occurrence of fraudulent acts and purify the market environment. The quality of agricultural assets such as fertilizers and pesticides is related to agricultural production and farmers' income, and involves the vital interests of the broad masses of farmers. In this case, the chemical fertilizer products sold by agricultural operators to farmers are seriously inconsistent with the national standards, and the content of the active ingredients of chemical fertilizers is seriously inconsistent with the packaging labels, which has constituted fraud. The trial court applied the punitive compensation system of "one refund, three compensation" according to law, decided that the operators should bear the punitive compensation liability, and took a clear attitude to crack down on the harmful behavior of pit farmers according to law. To create a healthy and orderly agricultural market environment, effectively protect the legitimate rights and interests of farmers, and provide strong judicial services and guarantees for the overall revitalization of the countryside.

　　Case Ⅲ

　　Operators should be responsible for selling fake seeds without fulfilling the obligation of quality inspection.

　　Administrative penalty case of a seed shopping mall v. a county agricultural and rural Bureau

　　Basic facts of the case

　　In January 2022, the administrative law enforcement team of the Agricultural and Rural Bureau of a county carried out a spot check on the quality of crop seeds in a seed market, and the tested samples were different from the standard samples collected and approved by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Areas. The Agricultural and Rural Bureau of a county investigated the suspected operation of fake seeds in the seed shopping mall. After investigation, a seed shopping mall has the problem of operating fake seeds. In July 2022, the Agricultural and Rural Bureau of a county made an administrative penalty decision on a seed shopping mall, confiscating 122 bags of fake seeds and illegal income, and imposing a fine of more than 580000 yuan. A seed shopping mall refused to accept it and filed an administrative lawsuit with the people's court on the grounds that the seed retailer had no obligation to inspect the quality and authenticity of the seeds and had no fault of his own, requesting the revocation of the administrative penalty decision.

　　Referee result

　　The trial court held that the Agricultural and Rural Bureau of a county, as the administrative department of agriculture and rural areas of the government, is in charge of the work of crop seeds in its jurisdiction, and has the statutory duty to impose administrative penalties on illegal acts in the activities of variety breeding and seed production, operation, use and management within its jurisdiction. The first paragraph of Article 48 of the Seed Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that the production and operation of fake and inferior seeds are prohibited. The second item of the second paragraph of this article stipulates that if the type or variety of seeds does not conform to the contents of the label or there is no label, they belong to false seeds. As a seller, a seed store sells seeds whose production and operation license information is not marked or inconsistent with the contents specified in the license, and whose variety approval number is incorrect. The production and operation of fake seeds is prohibited by law, and the inspection of the label content of seeds is the obligation of seed operators, and a seed store has not fulfilled its inspection obligation. The Agricultural and Rural Bureau of a county comprehensively considered the consequences of its illegal acts, the value of illegal business and the number of illegal varieties and other facts to make administrative penalties, and fulfilled the legal procedures of accepting cases, summoning inquiries, investigating and collecting evidence, informing the right to state and defend hearings, collective discussion and deciding to make penalties, and serving them, and the penalties were not excessive. The court decided to reject the lawsuit request of a seed mall.

　　Typical significance

　　If the granary is full, the world will be safe. As an important agricultural material, seed is the basis of food security. In order to ensure food security and agricultural ecological security, seed-related production and operation activities should be strictly managed. The Seed Law of the People's Republic of China explicitly prohibits the production and operation of fake and inferior seeds, and the operators of seed products have the obligation to inspect the labels of the seeds they sell, otherwise they will bear legal responsibility according to law. The judgment in this case highlights the clear judicial orientation of firmly supporting the agricultural and rural authorities to crack down on illegal activities such as production and operation of fake and inferior seeds in accordance with the law, which is of great significance for guiding seed operators to operate in accordance with the law, protecting farmers'legitimate rights and interests, and safeguarding food security.

　　Case IV

　　The operator shall not be exempted from liability for the damage caused by the defect of the product because the product has passed the warranty period.

　　Tan Mou v. Agricultural Machinery Sales Co., Ltd.

　　Basic facts of the case

　　On May 18, 2021, Tanmou purchased a combine harvester in an Agricultural Machinery Sales Co., Ltd. and paid 280000 yuan for the warranty period of 12 months from the date of sale. On September 16, 2022, the harvester caught fire and spontaneously ignited. After investigation and investigation, the fire department made an investigation certificate, which stated that "the fire site is the rear side of the harvester, the fire point is the lower left rear side of the harvester, and the cause of the fire is the spread of combustibles around the harvester caused by the failure of the electrical circuit". At the time of the accident, the harvester had been used for 16 months. According to the appraisal report issued by the appraisal institution entrusted by the people's court, the loss caused by the fire accident to Tan Mou is 202,200 yuan. Due to the fruitless negotiation, Tan sued for ordering an Agricultural Machinery Sales Co., Ltd. to compensate for the loss of its vehicles by 202,200 yuan according to law.

　　Referee result

　　The trial court held that Article 1202 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China stipulates: "If a product is defective and causes damage to others, the producer shall bear tort liability." Article 1203 stipulates: "If a product is defective and causes damage to others, the infringed person may claim compensation from the producer of the product or from the seller of the product.". If the product defect is caused by the producer, the seller shall have the right to recover the compensation from the producer after compensation. If the product is defective due to the fault of the seller, the producer shall have the right to recover the compensation from the seller after compensation. Although the harvester involved in the case had been purchased for 16 months at the time of the accident, the electrical circuit failure of the harvester was an unreasonable danger to personal and property safety, which was a product defect and was not exempted from liability for more than 12 months of warranty. The court ruled that an Agricultural Machinery Sales Co., Ltd. should compensate Tan Mou for the loss of 202200.

　　Typical significance

　　This case is a product liability dispute caused by defects of agricultural machinery products. It is the duty of the people's court to properly handle every dispute concerning the liability of agricultural products, ensure the quality of agricultural machinery products and the good order of agricultural production, and escort agricultural production by judicial means. Even if the product has passed the warranty period, if the product has major product defects that endanger personal and property safety, the producer should still be liable according to law. Agricultural machinery is an important production tool and property of farmers, and this case decides that the operator should compensate for the losses caused by the defects of agricultural machinery products according to law, which is of positive significance for safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of farmers and protecting agricultural production.

　　Case Ⅴ

　　If the manufacture and sale of food that does not meet safety standards constitutes a crime, it shall bear criminal responsibility according to law.

　　Xie Mou's case of producing and selling food that does not meet safety standards

　　Basic facts of the case

　　In July 2021, the defendant Xie Mou operated a roast duck restaurant, mainly selling cold dishes, stewed cooked food and other foods. In the opening promotion activities, due to the low price promotion, many consumers buy, the sales window is not closed in time, the indoor temperature is too high, resulting in food breeding bacteria, and some food materials exceed the shelf life, many people have physical discomfort after buying and eating, more than 10 people have food poisoning symptoms and sent to the hospital for treatment. After inspection, among the 40 single products sampled on the same day, 11 batches of cold dishes detected "coliform bacteria" and "Staphylococcus aureus", 17 batches of "Staphylococcus aureus" exceeded the standard limit, and nitrite in chicken wings and roast ducks exceeded the standard seriously. On April 18, 2022, the defendant Xie surrendered voluntarily and confessed his crime truthfully. The procuratorial organ prosecuted Xie Mou according to law.

　　Referee result

　　The trial court held that the food produced and sold by the defendant Xie Mou did not meet the food safety standards and caused serious harm to human health, resulting in more than 10 people suffering from food poisoning symptoms and being sent to the hospital for treatment, which constitut ed the crime of producing and selling food that did not meet the safety standards. According to the circumstances of voluntary surrender, confession and voluntary compensation, the defendant Xie Mou was sentenced to one year's imprisonment and a fine of RMB 20000 for the crime of producing and selling food that did not meet safety standards.

　　Typical significance

　　Food safety is the most direct and realistic interest of the people, and every production process and every production link is directly related to the life, health and safety of consumers. Operators must consciously abide by food safety laws and regulations and relevant food safety standards, operate in good faith according to law, and always put consumers'life, health and safety in the first place. In this case, more than 10 consumers suffered from foodborne diseases due to the serious over-standard food produced and sold by food operators, and were investigated for criminal responsibility according to law, which played an effective deterrent and educational role for producers and operators.

　　Case VI

　　The producers of air-conditioning products should be liable for the losses caused by product defects.

　　Product liability dispute case of a milk powder shop v. an air conditioning company limited

　　Basic facts of the case

　　A vertical air conditioner produced by an air conditioning Co., Ltd. is installed in a milk powder shop. In July 2022, a fire broke out in a milk powder shop. The county's fire rescue brigade issued a fire accident certificate, identifying the cause of the fire as follows: the fire site was located in the northeast corner of a milk powder shop, and the fire point was located in the vertical air conditioning part in the northeast corner of the milk powder shop. The cause of the fire was identified as the vertical air conditioning line failure. A milk powder shop then sued the court, requesting that an air-conditioning company be ordered to compensate for the loss of goods, the cost of house repair, the loss during the period of suspension of operation, the loss of rent during the period of suspension of operation, and the loss of compensation for other people's losses of more than 600000 yuan.

　　Referee result

　　The trial court held that, as a functional organization for the investigation and handling of fire accidents, the fire accident certificate issued by a county fire rescue brigade confirmed that the cause of the fire was the failure of a vertical air-conditioning line in a milk powder shop. The cause of the fire identified in the fire accident certificate can prove that there is a quality defect in the air conditioner in a milk powder shop, and there is a causal relationship between the defect and the fact of damage. As the producer of air conditioning involved in the case, an air conditioning company should be liable for the losses suffered by a milk powder shop due to the fire accident involved in the case. According to the actual loss of a milk powder shop, the court decided that an air-conditioning company should compensate more than 400000 yuan.

　　Typical significance

　　Fire is a common accident caused by product quality defects in production and life, which causes serious harm to people's life and property safety and production and operation order. In recent years, fire accidents caused by quality defects of electric bicycles, household appliances and other products have been reported frequently. The legal system of producers' liability for damages caused by defective products aims to promote producers to strengthen product quality control and management and protect quality and safety. This case ruled that air conditioner producers should be liable for the losses caused by defective products, giving full play to the normative and guiding role of judicial decisions in social governance, which is of positive significance for warning illegal production and operation, protecting the legitimate rights and interests of buyers, and building a strong line of defense for safe production and operation.

　　[Editor in charge: Wang Li]