Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, WARNINGS ISSUES—FOOD AND BEVERAGES—S.D. Cal.: Failure to warn claims regarding broken wine bottle proceed to trial, (Feb 5, 2026)

By Susan L. Smith, JD, MA

However, the court granted summary judgment to the retailer, wholesale distributer, and bottler of the wine on a woman’s claims of strict liability for manufacturing defect, strict liability for design defect, and negligence related to injuries she suffered when the bottle broke.

A federal district court in California granted the request of a retailer, a wholesaler distributer, and a bottler of sparkling wine to dismiss three of the claims of a woman who suffered lacerations when a bottle of sparkling wine she was attempting to open broke, but allowed the woman’s claims for strict liability and negligent failure to warn to proceed. The woman brought claims for (1) manufacturing defect; (2) strict liability for design defect; (3) strict liability for failure to warn; (4) negligence for failure to warn; and (5) negligence against the retail store where she bought the wine, the wholesale distributor, and the company that bottled and sold the wine. The retailer, Garfield Beach CVS LLC (CVS); the wholesale distributor, Southern Glazer’s Wine and Spirits, LLC (Glazer); and the bottler and seller of the wine, Pernod Ricard USA, Inc. (Pernod), jointly requested summary judgment on the woman’s asserted causes of action as well as the exclusion of certain experts. Although the court granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment on the woman’s claims of strict liability for manufacturing defect, strict liability for design defect, and negligence, the court concluded that the woman’s claims for strict liability and negligence for failure to warn would proceed to trial (McElroy v. Pernod Ricard USA, LLC, No. 23-CV-2183-CAB-VET (S.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2026)).

Background. After purchasing the sparkling wine, the woman, who had previously purchased similar products, took the wine to another family’s home. The sparking wine bottle was intact when the woman purchased the wine on December 18, 2021, and when she arrived at the family’s home. After removing the full cover and untwisting the wire cage covering the cork, the woman attempted to pull the cork from the bottle but was unable to remove it. Two members of the family attempted to pull the cork from the bottle by hand but were unable to remove it. At some point during the attempts to remove the cork, the top of the cork broke away, leaving a portion on the neck of the bottle. The woman read the back of the bottle for instructions for what to do if the cork broke, but the label did not advise against using a corkscrew, so she attempted to open the sparkling wine by inserting a corkscrew into the remaining cork. While attempting to remove the cork from the sparkling wine bottle with a corkscrew, the top of the glass blew off, leaving sharp edges all the way around. The woman’s left hand slipped down onto the jagged edge, causing a deep laceration. The broken bottle and cork were disposed of without any record of their condition after the injury.

Labeling on the bottles of sparkling wine. After August 2017, bottles of the sparkling wine carried the following label: “The contents of this bottle are under pressure. Slant bottle at 45 degree angle and point away from yourself and others before removing hood. Holding the cork, gently twist the bottle slowly in one direction until the pressure pushes the cork out. Never, in any circumstances, pry the cork or use a corkscrew or any other implement when opening this bottle.”

Court’s analysis. The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the woman’s claim of strict liability for manufacturing defect after the woman confirmed that she had abandoned that claim.

Strict liability for design defect. The court explained that to establish a design defect under California law, a plaintiff may prove a design defect under either of two alternative tests: the consumer expectations test, or the risk-benefit test. The woman’s complaint asserted the consumer expectations test, alleging that the defendants bottled, distributed, and/or sold a product with a design defect because it failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner. She contended that the use of corks to seal bottles of pressurized wine by Pernod and the entire wine industry is inherently defective because corks may break, leading to extraction efforts that can cause injury. She also contended that Glazer and CVS were jointly liable as distributors and retailers of this design-flawed product.

The court found that the design of the sparkling wine bottle at issue, specifically, the use of a cork to seal a pressurized bottle, was not the proximate cause of the woman’s injury. The court noted that the undisputed evidence in this case was that the bottle and cork of the sparkling wine the woman purchased were whole and intact when she and two others attempted to open the bottle by pulling on the cork in its intended manner. Moreover, the bottle did not break when the cork broke. The injury occurred when a corkscrew was used to open the pressurized bottle of wine, which resulted in the bottle breaking. Thus, the woman’s injury was not proximately caused by the product’s design. The court determined that the decision to use a corkscrew went to the woman’s failure to warn claim—whether it was reasonable for an ordinary consumer to use a corkscrew on a pressurized bottle in the absence of an adequate warning not to do so. Thus, the court granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment on the woman’s design defect claim.

Failure to warn. The woman asserted that the defendants were aware that employing a corkscrew or other implement to remove a cork from a pressurized bottle creates a serious risk of harm and, therefore, the defendants had a duty to warn customers of this risk. Citing to evidence demonstrating that Pernod was aware that other consumers had employed implements to remove corks from pressurized wines with resulting injury, the woman asserted that Pernod was on notice that a reasonable response by a consumer confronting a broken cork could be to use a corkscrew to remove it. She stated that Pernod’s labels after September 2013 specifically warned against ever using such an implement to open the pressurized bottle, which she argued was further evidence that Pernod was aware of such consumer behavior in response to unyielding or broken corks.

The woman testified that after the cork broke, she read the label on the sparkling wine bottle she purchased, and it did not have any warning against the use of a corkscrew or other implement to remove the cork. She argued that in the absence of a warning, an ordinary consumer of such product would not know that employing a corkscrew or other implement to remove a broken cork from a pressurized bottle would create a risk of serious harm. Thus, she asserted that the defendants were strictly liable for failing to provide an adequate warning against such action.

The defendants argued that with only the woman’s testimony to establish what warning, or lack thereof, was on the bottle, there was insufficient evidence to create a material factual dispute. The court disagreed, finding that the woman presented sufficient evidence to create a factual dispute for the jury to determine: (1) whether the danger of using a corkscrew on a pressurized bottle was known to the defendants; (2) whether that danger was obvious to the average consumer of such products so that a specific warning was not required; (3) what warning the bottle at issue had regarding the danger; and (4) whether the warning was adequate to inform the average consumer of the risk. Thus, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the failure to warn claims.

Negligence. The woman asserted that the defendants violated their duty of care to consumers by improperly storing and distributing a product in a manner that proximately caused her injury. The evidence for her assertion was the opinion of her expert witness regarding how non-vintage sparkling wines should be properly stored and distributed at the wholesale and retail level. The expert failed to cite any authority, regulation, actual industry guidelines, or evidence of any manufacturers, wholesalers, or retailers adhering to his proposed industry standards. There was no evidence that his proposed guidelines were a standard by which the industry operated. The court determined that the evidence of record was insufficient to create a material factual dispute. Thus, the court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on negligence and dismissed the claim. Based on this ruling, the court also granted the defendants’ motion to exclude the expert’s testimony.

Expert testimony. The court concluded that the cause of action for failure to warn did not require an expert opinion and excluded the designated experts for all parties on this question. The court stated that whether the average consumer would know that an implement like a corkscrew should never be used on a pressurized container without an explicit warning, and whether the label on the sparkling wine bottle the woman purchased was a suitable warning to refrain from doing so, were determinations well within the ability of the trier of fact to determine. An expert was not required to help the jurors understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue. The court denied the defendants’ motion to exclude portions of the report of the woman’s expert. The dispute regarding his opinions went to the weight they should be given, not the admissibility.

The case is No. 23-CV-2183-CAB-VET.

Judge: Bencivengo, C.

Attorneys: Benjamin Andre Won Koh (Singleton Schreiber, LLP) for April McElroy. Chelsea Yamabe (Lagasse Branch Bell Kinkead LLP) for Pernod Ricard USA, LLC.

Companies: Pernod Ricard USA, LLC

Cases: CourtDecisions DesignManufacturingNews FoodBeveragesNews WarningsNews ExpertEvidenceNews CaliforniaNews