LORETO LUCIANO DE SALAS vs. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY CAR (Page-15)

cannot,be said that the spontaneous explosion in the present case has been proved to have
come or originated clearly from an unforeseen event, - as in the case of Guinea cited above. -
the sudden change in the temperature was due solely to the lifting of the cover - except that
there was also a possibility that it came or originated from the sudden rise of the internal
pressure of the beer produced or caused by chemical changes in its composition, as a
consequence of the way in which the elements were mixed during the production, and being
an indispensable requisite to the defense of fortuitous event, the connection between the
cause and effect must be shown in a clear and convincing manner, this not having been
excluded, in the evidence of San Miguel, the possibility already mentioned, arid adopting the
judgment of the Court in the case of Auzene, supra,

"of a bottle becoming too highly charged with carbonated gas" or in
the language of the chemist, Mr. Gutierrez:

". . . the alcoholic content might to a negligible amount increase the
pressure, but that is Very little. But if it is added to the amount of pressure
that was exerted by the carbon dioxide, if that negligible amount will be the
determining factor, it may cause the explosion.";

It follows as a conclusion that neither has a fortuitous event been proven; truly, in
this entire discussion, it will not possibly be superfluous to remember that the production of
beverages, the manufacture of its bottles, are human labors; they are labors in which San
Miguel with full knowledge of the elements of such a nature that it is dangerous to mix one
with the others and then, those mixtures made by putting them in containers also of its own
manufacture, offers them for sale and consumption to the public for almost half a century,
as written by a great jurist:

"If the nature of a thing is such that it is reasonably certain to place
life and limb in peril when negligently made, it is a thing of danger." Mac
Pherson vs. Buick, 11 NE 1050 (1916), per Cardoso, J.

and the present ease is a simple ease in whieh a commercial enterprise manufactured
and sold to the plaintiff as a thing manufactured by it which exploded and injured the latter,
the more just resolution in the absence of clear and convincing proof that the incident
occurred without any fault in the manufacture, is to hold it responsible, because to adopt a
contrary resolution and to find San Miguel exempt from all responsibility, leaving the
innocent victim who without fault lost the sight of her right eye, powerless and completely
helpless, - this resolution is resolution which conflicts with practical justice, a resolution
which rends the conscience and pierces the heart, it is just* in the judgment of the Court that
some indemnity be given to the plaintiff to maintain the social equilibrium by giving to a
fellowman what is due, solely because of the same fact that this case is exceptional and
caused without doubt, by an involuntary negligence, proceed to mitigate it as much as
possible, and taking into account the circumstances of the incident, a judgment in her favor
in the amount of PI,200.00 will be sufficient, plus an additional sum for attorney's fees.