Products Liability Law Reporter

A California appellate court held, in an unpublished opinion, that distributors and sellers of an isopropyl alcohol bottle were not liable to a consumer who suffered burns when the bottle allegedly exploded.

Helen Bernal, who lived in an apartment with no kitchen, attempted to roast chilies without a stove. After watching videos on how to use 91% isopropyl alcohol as cooking fuel, she placed chili peppers into an empty metal tomato sauce can, filled it with alcohol, and dropped lit matches into the mixture. After she dropped approximately 25 matches into the can, the alcohol bottle exploded, causing a serious fire that burned her. She sued Walgreens Co. and P&L Development LLC, which sold and distributed the alcohol bottle, alleging strict products liability, breach of implied warranty, inadequate warnings, and negligence. Her son also alleged negligent infliction of emotional distress. The plaintiffs alleged the bottle was defective and unsafe for its intended use because it did not have a flame arrestor to prevent flammable vapors from entering the bottle. The plaintiffs also asserted the bottle was not fit for its intended purpose because of its concealed danger of exploding.

The defense moved successfully for summary judgment. The trial court concluded that Bernal’s use of the product exceeded what is foreseeable and that there was no evidence the bottle was unsafe in any way for its intended use.

Affirming, the appellate court found that the defense had presented uncontradicted evidence that Bernal had misused the isopropyl alcohol in such an extraordinary and unforeseeable manner that it was a superseding cause of the incident and her injuries. This superseding cause, the court said, absolved the defense of liability. The court added that the bottle expressly warned that its contents were flammable and should be kept away from fire. Despite these warnings, the court said that the plaintiff chose to soak chilis in alcohol while dropping lit matches into a tomato sauce can. Thus, the court concluded, there remained no triable issue of fact on whether the plaintiff’s actions were foreseeable as no manufacturer or seller would reasonably anticipate such extraordinary and dangerous misuse.

Citation: Bernal v. Walgreens Co., 2023 WL 4731566 (Cal. Ct. App. July 25, 2023).