The Supreme Court confirms compensation to the owner of a bar who lost an eye due to the explosion of a beer bottle

Explains that the damage must be compensated even if the company did not have "reckless action"

MADRID, 8 Dic. (EUROPA PRESS) -

The Supreme Court (TS) has confirmed the almost 130,000 euros in compensation for the owner of a bar who lost an eye due to the explosion of a beer bottle, considering that it was an "unusual" event whose consequences must be repaired even though the responsible company did not have any "reckless actions".

The events date back to August 2015, when one of the beer bottles that had just been supplied to him, while still inside the transport box, exploded. One of the crystals hit him in the eye, which he ended up losing.

For this reason, the man demanded compensation of 152,877.12 euros from the brewery as civil liability, but the company refused, claiming that the product was not defective because it had passed all quality controls. Thus, he maintained that the bottle could have exploded for reasons that were not attributable to him, such as transportation, custody by the distributor and even manipulation by the injured party himself.

Initially, a court of first instance in Barcelona agreed with the brewery, rejecting the man's claim, considering that "there are doubts about how the explosion occurred" without proving "reckless action" on the part of the company.

In this sense, he explained that "the emergency report states that the accident occurred while washing some bottles." In fact, he pointed out that, "according to the defendant's expert, the injury can only be explained by an impact or falling bottle."

The bar owner appealed and the Barcelona Court ruled in his favor, setting compensation of 127,927.12 euros by placing the legal problem in the civil liability regime for defective products, which "disregards the fault or negligence of the manufacturer or importer." , based on the liability derived from "damage caused by products due to the lack of safety that can be expected."

To this, the Provincial Court added that, according to three witnesses, the man was eating at the same table as a regular customer when the beer delivery man arrived. He got up to serve him, the delivery man left the case of beer on the bar and he took it and left it on top of the refrigerator, which was right between him and the bar. While the delivery man was counting the money he had given him, one of the bottles exploded.

This second court also pointed out that even if the emergency report were taken into account "a beer bottle should not explode just because it was washed under the tap", which is why it concluded that "it would also be treated as of an unusual and anomalous explosion".

Not satisfied with that second ruling, the brewery went to the Supreme Court, which is aligned with the Court of Barcelona, ​​determining that the damages derived from personal injuries caused by a defective product, to someone who acts with a purpose that falls within its commercial activity , business, trade or profession, are compensable.

The Supreme Court explains that the legal problem to be clarified is the regime applicable to the case. The brewery maintained that it was the general non-contractual liability included in the Civil Code, and the European directive for the defense of consumers and users could not be used by analogy, which would require proving culpable behavior to agree on compensation.

Although the court of first instance agreed, the Barcelona Court redirected it to the community standard, something with which the Civil Chamber of the TS agrees because, even though it is directed at consumers and users, "it does not exclude coverage of personal injuries suffered by those who use the defective product within the framework of a professional or business activity".