626 F.2d 188 (1st Cir. 1980)
In the incident giving rise to this action, plaintiff Killeen, then eight years of age, was playing with friends near his home when he found a non-returnable Miller High Life clear glass bottle that had been discarded by persons unknown.1
During the course of play, the plaintiff threw the thin-walled bottle against a telephone pole. The bottle shattered, and particles of glass entered the plaintiff's eye, causing severe injury.2
The plaintiff filed a diversity action against Miller Brewing Company and three manufacturers of glass products. The complaint charged the defendants with negligence, gross negligence, and breach of warranty in connection with the design and manufacture of the glass bottle used as a container for Miller Beer.3
The complaint alleged that the defendants should have been aware of the dangers inherent in their thin-walled non-returnable bottles and should have designed and marketed a product better able to safely withstand such foreseeable misuse as breakage in the course of improper handling by children.4 The district court accepted as true all the well-pleaded allegations in the complaint but nonetheless dismissed the action for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).5
The plaintiff appealed the district court's dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.6
Whether a glass bottle manufacturer breaches the implied warranty of merchantability under Mass. G.L. c. 106 § 2-314 when an eight-year-old child is injured after intentionally throwing a discarded non-returnable bottle against a telephone pole?7
Under Mass. G.L. c. 106 § 2-314, a merchant impliedly warrants that goods are fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used. The linchpin of the warranty claim is the proper scope of the term ordinary purpose.8
No. The established facts establish that plaintiff Killeen, then eight years of age, found a discarded non-returnable Miller High Life clear glass bottle while playing near his home.9 He threw the thin-walled bottle against a telephone pole, causing it to shatter with glass particles entering his eye and causing severe injury.10 This conduct amounts to deliberate misuse of the product after it had fulfilled its normal use and been discarded, falling outside the scope of ordinary purposes under the warranty.11
Massachusetts precedent confirms that the warranty does not guarantee that a glass beer bottle will safely withstand being intentionally smashed against a solid stationary object. The propensity of glass to break under pressure is common knowledge and no reasonable consumer would expect otherwise.12 The district court correctly accepted the well-pleaded allegations as true yet found the warranty claim deficient on these facts, and the First Circuit affirmed that conclusion after examining the limits of ordinary purpose.13
The glass bottle manufacturer did not breach the implied warranty of merchantability.14
Whether a glass bottle manufacturer can be held liable in negligence for injuries resulting from the deliberate misuse of a thin-walled bottle in a manner unrelated to its intended use as a beer container?15
By and large, the standard of safety of goods is the same under the warranty theory as under the negligence theory. In both actions the plaintiff must show that the goods were unreasonably dangerous for the purpose to which they would ordinarily be put.16
No. The established facts show that the plaintiff threw the discarded bottle against the telephone pole after it had been discarded by unknown persons.17 This was an intentional act of misuse wholly unrelated to the bottle’s function as a beer container.18 The same considerations that defeat the warranty claim defeat the negligence claims because the standard of safety is the same under both theories and the product was safe for its ordinary purposes.19
Massachusetts courts have rejected the notion that a common product safe for normal uses reasonably anticipated at the time of manufacture becomes defective simply because it is foreseeable that improper use may cause injury.20 The district court dismissed the negligence allegations for failure to state a claim and the First Circuit affirmed, noting that endorsing liability here would expose manufacturers to overwhelming potential suits from every discarded glass object.21
The glass bottle manufacturer cannot be held liable in negligence.22