Question

Fact pattern 19.2 Virginia Burke purchased a bottle of “Le Domaine” champagne that was manufactured by Almaden Vineyards, Inc. At home, she removed the wine seal from the top of the bottle but did not remove the plastic cork. She set the bottle on the counter, intending to serve it in a few minutes. Shortly thereafter, the plastic cork spontaneously ejected from the bottle, ricocheted off the wall, and struck Burke in the left lens of her eyeglasses, shattering the lens and driving pieces of glass into her eye. The champagne bottle did not contain any warning of this danger. Evidence showed that Almaden had previously been notified of the spontaneous ejection of the cork from its champagne bottles. Burke sued Almaden to recover damages for strict liability. Is Almaden liable? Yes No Explain your answer.

Answer 1

Issue - Burke got injured because of the spontaneous ejection of the cork from the bottle and sued Almaden for the same. Is Almaden liable ?

Rule - if any aspect of the design which may prove to be detrimental to users of the product exists, there should be adequate and conspicuous warning regarding the same on the product. Such a warning is necessary to avoid any liabilities arising from injuries caused to product buyers from defective products design.

Analysis- case states that there were precedents of injuries/warnings to Almaden and they should have added a warning note on the champagne bottle to avoid any kind of claims arising from injuries or damages.

Conclusion - since the injury caused to Burke was result of the defective design of the product(champagne) which can be called unreasonably dangerous and there being no warnings regarding the same, consumer would win the case and Almaden is liable.