全球都在围剿“夺命门把手”

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the ongoing legal challenges faced by Tesla regarding its hidden door handle design, which has been implicated in several accidents leading to fatalities and injuries. The situation highlights the contrasting regulatory and legal approaches in the U.S. and China concerning automotive safety standards and consumer protection [3][4][10]. Group 1: Legal Issues and Incidents - Tesla is facing a lawsuit in Washington state after a Model 3 vehicle lost control and crashed, resulting in one death and one injury, attributed to the "unique and defective door handle design" that hindered escape [4][5]. - The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has initiated an investigation into Tesla's door handle safety, affecting approximately 174,000 vehicles, following multiple complaints about the Model Y's door handles failing due to low-voltage battery issues [5][9]. - Previous lawsuits against Tesla have highlighted similar issues, including a fatal incident involving a Model S where passengers were trapped in a burning vehicle due to the door locks malfunctioning [4][5]. Group 2: Regulatory Approaches - In the U.S., the dual-track system of regulatory oversight and litigation provides consumers with multiple avenues for recourse, including negligence, warranty, and strict liability claims [8][10]. - NHTSA's investigation aims to compel Tesla to disclose critical design and failure data, with significant financial penalties for non-compliance, showcasing a proactive regulatory approach to mitigate systemic risks [9][10]. - The article contrasts the U.S. model with China's approach, where regulatory standards are being established to preemptively address safety concerns, as seen in the recent public consultation for mandatory safety standards for automotive door handles [3][10]. Group 3: Compensation and Liability Differences - In the U.S., the compensation model includes comprehensive and punitive damages, which can significantly impact companies in product liability cases, especially when malice is proven [11]. - Conversely, China's compensation framework is primarily statutory, with punitive damages having clear limits, making the regulatory penalties and brand reputation more significant deterrents for companies [11][12].