Bacardi moves to have lawsuits against it dismissed
I reported a bit ago about 2 women who are suing Bacardi over burns they received in a bar. Bacardi is now coming back at them with some interesting observations. They say that the alcohol used to light the fire was rubbing alcohol, not their 151 rum.
Bacardi denies 151 rum caused burns
Four years ago, a patron at a South Florida bar turned a bottle of rum into a “flame thrower.” Now three women who got burned are trying to hold Bacardi responsible.
The women have sued the Miami spirits company, blaming its 151-proof rum for the injuries they suffered after a bottle used to pour shots turned into a flame thrower. But Bacardi, in a motion to dismiss the lawsuits, said the women were hurt 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.
Quoting from Miami-Dade County police and fire reports, the company said another drunken patron placed a paper menu in the fire and then “pulled it up in the air,” causing the fire to spread.
“Indeed, rubbing alcohol is the sole named source of the fire,” Bacardi USA said in the motion filed last week in federal court. “Bacardi had nothing to do with this misfortune.”
This would seem to be a material question in the case. If the stuff used to light the fire wasn’t Bacardi, then the lawsuit is frivolous and should be tossed out on its ear. I had thought that this would prompt Bacardi to put one of those idiot-level warning labels on their bottles warning people that alcholic beverages might, you know, catch fire if you light it with a friggin’ match. Silly me for thinking that. Turns out they already have such a warning label. And – get this – the cap used on the bottle (the one Bacardi provides, I might add) has a flame arrester on it!
Bacardi also said its 151 rum contains warning labels about its flammability — one says “Do not use this product for flaming dishes or drinks” — and features a “flame arrester” to prevent it from accidentally igniting.
The lawsuit the women are pressing alleges that the cap is “to easy to remove.” What? They’re suggesting Bacardi lock the cap on the bottle top with a padlock? How about holding the moron who actually removed the cap responsible – assuming that’s what happened, of course. Their case was weak before. With the facts now available, it’s anemic to the point of a coma. I reiterate my call for the Judge to toss this one out with predjuidice and for Bacardi to go after the lawyers who convinced these women they had a case.
