Exploding Wine Bottle

[seniorjudge]

Originally Posted by mcsocfce

That is my concern. With court and serving fees, I would be out $150 just to try a small claim. And even then, they still have the option to take it to circuit court, which would incur another $200-$250 in filing fees and bring on their attorney (which is the most likely option on their part).


I'm afraid it was verbal on the phone. But if questioned on the stand, an honest answer would hurt their defense by them assuming knowledge.

Sorry, you have no case.

First of all, it will be nearly impossible for you to prove negligence on behalf of the booze distributor.

What kind of proof would you have?

No need to get into any other reasons why you have no case.

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

At what temperature was the wine stored when it came home? In a wine cellar? Or just in a wine rack in a room whose temperature varies?

[xylene]

I disagree. I don't think consumers assume the risk of damage from an improperly corked bottle after purchasing wine. In fact, your own conclusion is inconsistent. If the winery were not liable for negligence, then it wouldn't owe the OP anything (not even a new bottle of wine). If the winery were negligent such that it owes the OP a new bottle of wine, then clearly it owes the OP for other foreseeable damages as well.

Please read the words if any and grasp there meaning as a conditional modifier.

Indeed unless a proveable defect in the bottle existed he should not get free one

Wine is beverage, not battery acid. Spillage and seal failure is foreseeable risk for the consumer.

How could the vintner have 'foreseen' that this consumer would have so foolishly stored his wine in a cabinet with an unsealed finish?

Lets strecth this. Say the bottle had leaked onto his 30 million dollar Rembrandt?

Are you saying there is no threshold for damages? Of course there is. It is at the bottle.

I think the OP has a reasonable chance of winning a small claims case for all damages (especially if he can get the employee(s) to admit that bottles explode all the time).

The bottle did not explode. It threw its cork.

Clearly you don't have much exposure to wine. Wine bottles leak all the time, and sparkling wines throw corks, again, all the time.

Carbonated beverages, be they wine or soda or sparkling water are bottled with care to prevent leakage, but any consumer can themselves easily foresee the risk of spillage in their handling and storage. That's just everyday common knowledge.

In what bizarro courtroom would the OP need to prove that?

The one were law prevails. Mishandling of sparkling wine will result in a thrown cork.

It would be the defendant's burden to prove that the OP was negligent, not the other way around.

The defendant has the right to introduce as a defense that the cork throw could be the OP's fault, since the OP has no evidence of negligence on the part of the vintner.

The fact that he was damaged is not in itself evidence of any negligence.

Give me a report from an another winemaker that the design of the closure was improper, or a beverage container engineer that the matterials in the cap construction were knowingly shoddy...

At the end of the day without that kind of data its boo hoo to some guy with fancy cabinets and not a lot of judgment.

[You Are Guilty]

Originally Posted by CameronNewport

I think the OP has a reasonable chance of winning a small claims case for all damages (especially if he can get the employee(s) to admit that bottles explode all the time).

Not that I necessarily disagree with you, but say the OP's neighbor bought the same bottle of wine, and it too had a "cork malfunction". Except here, the cork flew right into neighbor's prized Elvis collectible plate worth $4,000 (remember, not all plates go up in value), before bouncing off into the urn with Grandma's ashes in it, which fell over onto Spot, who, in a fit of blind panic, ran into the living room coffee table, knocking the candle right into the drapes, which eventually resulted in the entire place burning down. The winery owes for a new house?

(In case its not obvious, while small claims is usually a free-for-all, I think there's a Palsgraf problem with the cabinets).

[CameronNewport]

Originally Posted by You Are Guilty

Not that I necessarily disagree with you, but say the OP's neighbor bought the same bottle of wine, and it too had a "cork malfunction". Except here, the cork flew right into neighbor's prized Elvis collectible plate worth $4,000 (remember, not all plates go up in value), before bouncing off into the urn with Grandma's ashes in it, which fell over onto Spot, who, in a fit of blind panic, ran into the living room coffee table, knocking the candle right into the drapes, which eventually resulted in the entire place burning down. The winery owes for a new house?

(In case its not obvious, while small claims is usually a free-for-all, I think there's a Palsgraf problem with the cabinets).

No. The winery owes for all reasonably foreseeable damage that results from its negligence. It is reasonably foreseeable that if a cork is improperly placed in a wine bottle, the cork may come out and wine will spill. Therefore, the winery would be responsible for that type of mess. The chain of events you describe are not reasonably foreseeable results from a negligently corked wine bottle.

[seniorjudge]

Originally Posted by You Are Guilty

...

(In case its not obvious, while small claims is usually a free-for-all, I think there's a Palsgraf problem with the cabinets).

...

And that is the least of the problems with this non-case!

But, agreeing with you also on the free-for-all aspect, go ahead and sue and see what happens!

Just remember that there is no way the bottler could have reasonably foreseen the damage.

[CameronNewport]

Originally Posted by xylene

Please read the words if any and grasp there meaning as a conditional modifier.

Indeed unless a proveable defect in the bottle existed he should not get free one

I did see those words, and I understand that you think he may be entitled to just a bottle of wine. That is wrong. If he is entitled to a bottle of wine, then he is entitled to other damages as well.

Wine is beverage, not battery acid. Spillage and seal failure is foreseeable risk for the consumer.

I disagree.

How could the vintner have 'foreseen' that this consumer would have so foolishly stored his wine in a cabinet with an unsealed finish?

Lets strecth this. Say the bottle had leaked onto his 30 million dollar Rembrandt?

Most people don't store their wine in sealed cabinets, so the damage is foreseeable. As for the Rembrandt, that is unforeseeable. See my response to You Are Guilty.

Are you saying there is no threshold for damages? Of course there is. It is at the bottle.

No, that's not what I'm saying. And no, the threshold is not the bottle.

The bottle did not explode. It threw its cork.

Clearly you don't have much exposure to wine. Wine bottles leak all the time, and sparkling wines throw corks, again, all the time.

Carbonated beverages, be they wine or soda or sparkling water are bottled with care to prevent leakage, but any consumer can themselves easily foresee the risk of spillage in their handling and storage. That's just everyday common knowledge.

Again, I disagree that a consumer assumes the risk that a cork will shoot out of the bottle.

The one were law prevails. Mishandling of sparkling wine will result in a thrown cork.

Again, that is for the defendant to prove. It is not the OP's burden to disprove it.

The defendant has the right to introduce as a defense that the cork throw could be the OP's fault, since the OP has no evidence of negligence on the part of the vintner.

The fact that he was damaged is not in itself evidence of any negligence.

Give me a report from an another winemaker that the design of the closure was improper, or a beverage container engineer that the matterials in the cap construction were knowingly shoddy...

Okay...

[CameronNewport]

Lets strecth this. Say the bottle had leaked onto his 30 million dollar Rembrandt?

Just to clarify: It is foreseeable that a person would put a bottle of wine in a cabinet; not an antique cabinet worth $500,000. A person who does that does assume the risk IMO. Just the same, it would be completely negligent (as well as unforeseeable) to put a Rembrandt in a place such that a bottle of wine could spill on it because of a faulty cork. See the difference?

The OP would be entitled to a bottle of wine, and the reasonable cost of cleaning up his ordinary carpet, and the reasonable cost of cleaning his ordinary cabinet.

[CameronNewport]

Originally Posted by seniorjudge

Sorry, you have no case.

First of all, it will be nearly impossible for you to prove negligence on behalf of the booze distributor.

What kind of proof would you have?

No need to get into any other reasons why you have no case.

I love this post, as it makes it so apparent that you have no legal education.

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

Cameron, SJ is a judge. I hope that he does have a clue of the legal system.

[CameronNewport]

Originally Posted by Ginny J

Cameron, SJ is a judge. I hope that he does have a clue of the legal system.

Ginny,

I can guarantee you with 100% certainty that SJ is not a judge. I can point to a host of examples where he posted information that a law student would know to be wrong, let alone a lawyer or judge.

He doesn't understand contract law.

He doesn't understand the basics of debtor/creditor law, such as how exemptions and judgments interact.

He doesn't understand the concept of res judicata (which any judge must be extremely familiar with).

In this thread he made it clear that he doesn't understand a basic tort concept (res ipsa) with regard to proving negligence.

EDIT: And I ignored the fact that the guy posts here continuously from morning till night every day. What kind of judge (or lawyer) has time for that? A judge? More like an internet addict.

[seniorjudge]

Originally Posted by mcsocfce

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Oregon

I purchased a bottle of wine directly from a local winery and placed it in my wine rack. Nearly a month later, while out one night, the carbonated bottle of red wine blew the cork and shot across my kitchen and dining room. The professional damage estimate for the wine penetrating the oak cabinets, not counting individual unattached items, came to $2000. Do I have a valid claim on my hands to sue the winery for the amount of the damages due to what is assumed a poorly corked bottle?

There was no disclaimer with the sale of the wine. When initially called, the manager of the winery said this happens all the time in their store room, but didn't think it would happen in someone's home as well. They are willing to compensate a couple cases of wine, but $500 in wine won't repair the $2000 in damages done to my home, not to mention a damaged area rug. Please advise.

Post back with results of your lawsuit.

[You Are Guilty]

Originally Posted by CameronNewport

The winery owes for all reasonably foreseeable damage that results from its negligence.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by CameronNewport

It is reasonably foreseeable that if a cork is improperly placed in a wine bottle, the cork may come out and wine will spill.

I'm no wine expert, but common sense says true.

Originally Posted by CameronNewport

Therefore, the winery would be responsible for that type of mess.

You skipped a step here. Are unfinished, $2k "wine cabinets" the expected place to store wine? Considering I store my Thunderbird on the bottom shelf of my fridge, I say "no". But this is the issue I was trying to point out.

Originally Posted by CameronNewport

The chain of events you describe are not reasonably foreseeable results from a negligently corked wine bottle.

I agree, and that's the way I answered the question on my Torts final as well. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree as to the cabinets though.

[CameronNewport]

Originally Posted by You Are Guilty

You skipped a step here. Are unfinished, $2k "wine cabinets" the expected place to store wine? Considering I store my Thunderbird on the bottom shelf of my fridge, I say "no". But this is the issue I was trying to point out.

That's an issue of fact that I can't answer. What kind of cabinets were they? What is the reasonable cost to fix/clean ordinary wooden cabinets versus another kind of cabinet? I didn't get the impression that the cabinets were special in some way, but maybe they were.

Let's agree on this: If found negligent, the winery would be responsible for fixing the damage done to fixtures/furniture that one would reasonably expect to be damaged by a such negligence. The winery would owe the OP more than simply a new bottle of wine.

[xylene]

Originally Posted by CameronNewport

Let's agree on this: If found negligent, the winery would be responsible for fixing the damage done to fixtures/furniture that one would reasonably expect to be damaged by a such negligence.

One would reasonably expect wine or any beverage to be stored in a racking system that is impervious to liquids. IE wipe clean versus a 2000 dollar refinishing.

Because doing otherwise the consumer would have accepted the risk of seal failure for so racking the bottles in a place that is subject to damage by liquid beverage, be it a $50 knot pine cabinet purchaed from IKEA or next to a Rembrandt.

Because beverage containers are highly subject to leaks. Especially carbonated beverages.

Everyone knows that.