LORETO LUCIANO DE SALAS vs. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY CAR (Page-11)

"Plaintiff owned and operated a sandwich shop in Oklahoma City
where he sold among other things, Stag Beer, which is brewed and bottled by
defendant at Belloviiles Illinois, At about 9 p.m. August 26, 1944, plaintiff
was replenishing the supply of bottled Stag Beer in the cooler from the cases
which had been delivered to his place of business some three days before by
the Collins Dicty Morris Co., distributor of Stag Beer in Oklahoma City. He
was putting the beer bottles, two bottles in each hand, from the case, placing
them in the cooler. He had placed several bottles from this case in cooler
when suddenly the bottle he then held in his right hand exploded and pieces
of broken glass cut deep into the palm surface of his right hand, Testimony
disclosed that the bottles, and contents were examined several times before
they were sealed, that the last inspection made was under a large magnifying
glass which lights on the bottle and contents; that small hairlines or cracks in
the bottle would show up under such exams, and that defective bottles were
not used;"

The Court absolved, reasoning:

"Where a bottled beverages, intended for human consumption is
sealed by the manufacturer and placed upon the market through retail
dealers^ the manufacturer impliedly warrants such beverage to be fit for
human consumption and liability of the manufacturer to the ultimate
consumer who purchases from retailer may be based upon implied warranty;
but the Court does not think that this rule is applicable to a bottle or
container which may become weakened by the manner and method in which
it is handled, or by other circumstances such as heat, agitation and other
factors which under certain circumstances might cause the bottle to explode;
the doetrinf of 'res ipsa loquitur' is inapplicable to the bursting of a bottle of
beer after it has passed from the bottler into the hands of third parties, where
the record is silent as to how the beer is handled after it leaves the possession
of the bottler;"

And it is noted again, in that case, it was not the manufacturer but a
distributor who sold the bottle; and the court took into account the very
possible circumstance of its having been Weakened when it was in his
possession, certain damages because of the heat, agitation and certain other
elements, because of which it was not just to hold the manufacturer
responsible.

8. In the case of Gordon vs. Aztec Brewery Co. (1948) 196 P, 2nd, 38,
the facts are as follows;

"In the morning of August 23, 1948, plaintiff who owned a cocktail
bar and cafe, was severely injured in his right eye when a bottle of ABC Beer
exploded in his hand while transferring it from the case in which it was