LORETO LUCIANO DE SALAS vs. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY CAR (Page-13)

corporation which had sold him the article which caused the loss of her right eye; the
spontaneous explosion could not have happened except due to the manufacture of the bottle
or the production of the beverage^ or both; there was a certain degree of negligence; and as
the defendant was the one who manufactured and sold them to Loreto, it is the defendant
who should answer for the negligence and the damages it caused; and this must be the legal
consequence in every case, from the viewpoint that what happened was a quasi*delict.
"Art. 2187. - Manufacturers and processors of foodstuffs, drinks,

toiler articles and similar goods, shall be liable for death or injuries caused
by any noxious or harmful substances, used although no contractual relation
exists between them and the consume?s." New Civil Code.

Applying for this purpose, the principle of res ipsa loquitur, a principle which the
court which decided the ease of Auzene, supra, rightly applied, or rightly from the viewpoint
of the contracts, since regarding the juridical relation between the plaintiff and San Miguel
being a bond established by the contract of purchase and sale, the law provides:

"Art. 1566. - The vendor is responsible to the vendee for any hidden
faults or defects in the thing sold, even though he was not aware thereof.

This provision shall not apply if the contrary has been stipulated and
the vendor was not aware of the hidden faults or defects in the thing sold."
New Civil Code.

And the only defense which is available, which can justify absolution, is to consider
the accident which happened as a fortuitous event, which being a case which it could not
have prevented, San Miguel cannot be liable. (Art. 1174 of the Civil Code.

CONSIDERING: That, in Canadian jurisprudence, there is a decision in which the
Court considered it, reasoning in this manner:

"It is proved that glass is not a substance that becomes weakened by
use, unless from the application of some physical force, it is cracked. If it
were cracked at the time of filling, the proof shows that it would explode in
that operation, and so if the crack occurred at any time when the pressure
existed within, it would immediately explode. I am driven to the conclusion
that when the bottle in question was placed in her refrigerator by the
plaintiff, it was sound and strong enough to support the pressure of the
liquid. What then could have caused the explosion? The force of nature as
to the contractions and expansion of bodies by the change of temperature are
practically irresistible. Thus most of us have seen vessels burst, stonework
thrown out of place, etc. by the expansion that takes place in the conversion
of water into ice. So we have seen glass vessels broken by putting hot water
within them, and in this case, the thicker the glass the more likely the