The Supreme Court (TC) confirmed the payment of almost 130 thousand euros in compensation to a bar owner who lost an eye due to an explosion bottle of beer, holding that it was an “unusual” event that needed to be addressed, even if the company responsible had not committed any “negligent acts.” The events date back to August 2015, when one of the beer bottles that had just been delivered to him, while still inside the shipping crate, exploded. One of the crystals hit him in the eye, which he eventually lost.

For this reason, the man demanded compensation from the brewery in the amount of 152,877.12 euros as civil liability, but the company refused, stating that the products were not defective because they had passed all quality checks. Thus, he argued that the bottle could have exploded due to reasons beyond his control, such as transportation, storage by the distributor, and even manipulation by the victim himself.

Initially, the Barcelona Court of First Instance agreed with the brewery, dismissing the man’s claim, finding that “there are doubts about how the explosion occurred” without proving “negligence” on the company’s part.

In this sense, he explained that “the emergency message indicated that the accident occurred while washing some bottles.” At the same time, he noted that, “according to the defendant’s expert, the injury can only be explained by the impact or fall of the bottle.”

Defective item

The bar owner appealed and the Barcelona court ruled in his favor, setting compensation at €127,927.12, placing the legal issue under the civil liability regime for defective products, which “does not take into account the fault or negligence of the manufacturer or importer.” on liability arising from “damage caused by the product due to an anticipated lack of safety.”

The provincial court added that, according to three witnesses, the man was eating at the same table with a regular customer when the beer delivery man arrived. He stood up to serve him, the delivery man left a case of beer on the counter, and he took it and left it on the refrigerator, which was directly between him and the bar. While the courier was counting the money given to him, one of the bottles exploded.

This second court also pointed out that even if the emergency message was taken into account, “a beer bottle should not explode just because it was washed under the tap,” so it concluded that “it would also be considered an unusual and anomalous explosion.” “

Professional activity

Not satisfied with this second ruling, the brewery appealed to the Supreme Court, which cooperated with the Barcelona court, determining that the damage caused by personal injury caused by a defective product was caused to a person acting for a purpose falling within the scope of his commercial activity, business, trade or profession are subject to compensation.

The Supreme Court explains that the legal issue that needs to be clarified is the regime applicable to the case. The brewery argued that this was a general non-contractual liability included in the Civil Code and the European Consumer and User Protection Directive could not be used by analogy, which would require proof of culpable conduct to reach an agreement on compensation.

Although the trial court agreed, the Barcelona court redirected it to the community standard, with which the CU Civil Chamber agrees because, although it is aimed at consumers and users, “it does not exclude coverage for bodily injuries sustained by those who use a defective product in the course of a professional or business activities.”