The rum maker contends that the three women’s injuries “were caused after a bartender poured rubbing alcohol on the bar of the ‘Secrets’ adult club and ignited it as part of a promotion for flaming drinks in 2002.” The complainants, it suggests, have already recovered damages from other and more culpable entities in the accident. The plaintiff’s lawyer says the 151-proof liquor has been the cause of other accidents when it caught fire, but Bacardi counters that the label warns against use in flaming drinks and that the bottle includes a “flame arrester”. (“Bacardi Denies Its 151 Rum Caused Bar Burn Injuries”, AP/FoxNews.com, Sept. 25). For our earlier coverage, see Jul. 27.
Bacardi responds to flaming-drinks suit
The rum maker contends that the three women’s injuries “were caused after a bartender poured rubbing alcohol on the bar of the ‘Secrets’ adult club and ignited it as part of a promotion for flaming drinks in 2002.” The complainants, it suggests, have already recovered damages from other and more culpable entities in the accident. […]
3 Comments
Do we really need to warn college frat partiers that putting a match to hard liquor causes flame? Isn’t that covered in Science 101?
Question – do law students do Science 101?
“Do we really need to warn college frat partiers that putting a match to hard liquor causes flame?”
Yes, apparently, we do. Lawyers absolutely DEMAND (upon penalty of lawsuit) that we treat them as completely and utterly ignorant and devoid of any higher brain functions at all.
Insert related witty comment here – there are plenty to choose from.