Gasque v. Heublein, Inc.

• Decision Date: 29 February 1984
• Docket Number: No. 0143,0143
• Citation: 315 S.E.2d 556,281 S.C. 278
• Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
• Parties: Wayne D. GASQUE, Respondent, v. HEUBLEIN, INC., Heubliein Allied Vintners, Inc., United Vintners, Inc., Ben Arnold Company, Inc. d/b/a Fine Wines & Spirits by Ben Arnold Company, Better Brands, Inc., Colonial Stores, Inc., d/b/a Big Star, Defendants, of whom Heublein, Inc., Heublein Allied Vintners, Inc., and United Vintners, Inc. are Appellants. Appeal of HEUBLEIN, INC. . Heard

Page 556

315 S.E.2d 556

281 S.C. 278

Wayne D. GASQUE, Respondent, v. HEUBLEIN, INC., Heubliein Allied Vintners, Inc., United Vintners, Inc., Ben Arnold Company, Inc. d/b/a Fine Wines &amp Spirits by Ben Arnold Company, Better Brands, Inc., Colonial Stores, Inc., d/b/a Big Star, Defendants of whom Heublein, Inc., Heublein Allied Vintners, Inc., and United Vintners, Inc. are Appellants Appeal of HEUBLEIN, INC.

No. 0143.

Court of Appeals of South Carolina.

Heard Feb. 29, 1984.

Decided April 9, 1984.

D.W. Green, Jr., of Burroughs, Green & Sasser, Conway, and Stephen G. Morrison, of Nelson, Mullins, Grier & Scarborough, Columbia, for appellants.

Kaye Gorenflo Hearn, of Stevens, Stevens, Thomas, Hearn & Hearn, Loris, for respondent.

GARDNER, Judge:

This appeal is from a $750,000 jury verdict rendered in favor of the respondent, Wayne D. Gasque, in a products liability action. We affirm.

Respondent Gasque sustained permanent loss of vision in his left eye when he was struck by the stopper and cork assembly of a bottle of Jacques Bonet Cold Duck sparkling wine. The stopper allegedly ejected prematurely when Gasque's friend was twisting the wire retaining hood.

Respondent brought suit against appellants, Heublein, Inc., Heublein Allied Vintners, Inc., and United Vintners, Inc., (HEUBLEIN), manufacturers-bottlers of Jacques Bonet Cold Duck, and three other defendants in the chain of distribution. Gasque sought actual and punitive damages based on negligence, warranty, and strict liability in tort.

The case was submitted to the jury on the theories of negligence and strict liability. No motion to elect or for a special verdict was interposed by appellants. The jury returned a general verdict for actual damages against HEUBLEIN.

Appellants present three questions for review:

1. Whether the trial court erred in submitting to the jury the issues of negligent (a) design, (b) manufacture, (c) inspection, and (d) failure to warn;

2. Whether the trial court erred in admitting into evidence a filmed experiment conducted by respondent's expert; and

3. Whether the trial court erred in failing to grant appellants' motion for a new trial absolute on the ground the verdict was actuated by passion, prejudice and caprice?

The questions presented overlook the "two issue rule" which is firmly established in South Carolina. Where a case is submitted to the jury on two or more theories and a general verdict is returned, the verdict will be upheld if it is supported by at least one theory. Hussman Refrigerator & Supply Company v. Cash & Carry Groceries, Inc., 134 S.C. 191, 132 S.E. 173 (1926); Anderson v. West, 270 S.C. 184, 241 S.E.2d 551 (1978).

Inexplicably, HEUBLEIN did not brief any of its exceptions relating to the submission of the theory of strict liability to the jury. Exceptions not argued by an appellant in its brief are deemed abandoned. Nienow v. Nienow, 268 S.C. 161, 232 S.E.2d 504 (1977); Supreme Court Rule 8, § 2. HEUBLEIN has thus abandoned its exceptions relating to the submission of strict liability and is bound by the "two issue rule."

By supplemental brief, HEUBLEIN argues this Court should depart from the "two issue rule" in products liability cases because negligence and strict liability are so closely intertwined. No petition to argue against precedent was submitted by appellants, as required by our rules. See Supreme Court Rule 8, § 10. Nevertheless, we have considered this argument and reject it because of the obvious differences between the two theories, i.e., the different quantum of proof required and the fact that one's origins are statutory while the others are at common law. Additionally, we question this courts authority to carve an exception to a ruling of the Supreme Court. Shea v. State Dept. of Mental Retardation, 310 S.E.2d 819 (S.C.App.1983).

Although it is not necessary for this Court to address appellants' arguments with respect to liability in view of the "two issue rule," we hold that ample evidence existed to warrant submission of the theories of negligent design, manufacture, inspection and failure to warn to the jury.

1-A

Negligent Design

The principal evidence offered by Gasque on the issue of negligent design was two reports commissioned by appellant, United Vintners, Inc., entitled the "Premature Ejection of Champagne Stoppers." These two reports contained the results of tests conducted by an independent agency, Dave Eolkin Laboratories, and Peter Tan, Director of Quality Control for United Vintners, Inc.

Both the initial Eolkin Report, dated February 22, 1970, and the second Eolkin Report, dated June 1, 1971, identified the problem experienced by HEUBLEIN with the premature ejection of champagne stoppers and suggested design alternatives to correct the problem. These alternatives included a Scott drilled stopper with air holes to vent the pressure, and a stopper coated with a pro-friction material. According to the first Eolkin Report: "The Scott drilled stoppers are generally superior to those currently in use but the 'pop' does not occur on opening."

The second Eolkin Report contains the following conclusions concerning the effectiveness of the coated stopper:

1. A stopper coating possessing a high friction characteristic was developed and has been tested on the Madera production line. Preliminary indications are that it will solve the premature ejection problem. (emphasis supplied)

2. The 'pro-friction' stopper makes possible, for the first time, a full safety container system.

Additionally, HEUBLEIN's Quality Control Director, Peter Tan, testified he could not recall any reported injuries caused by the product when wood corks were in use, but that after HEUBLEIN began using polyethylene stoppers, at least six injuries had been reported. The second Eolkin Report discussed the problem of polyethylene stoppers versus wood corks:

Wood corks, when used in wine bottles, remain snug and tight. Polyethylene stoppers, with passage of time, remain snug but not tight.

This evidence, contained in the two Eolkin Reports, established that (1) HEUBLEIN was aware of the problem of premature ejection; (2) HEUBLEIN was advised of feasible design alternatives; (3) HEUBLEIN was aware that wood corks were safer than polyethylene stoppers, and (4) HEUBLEIN elected to continue using an undrilled and uncoated polyethylene stopper, inferentially to retain the festive "pop." We conclude this evidence, standing alone, was sufficient to require submission of the issue of negligent design to the jury. See Kennedy v. Custom Ice Equipment Co., Inc., 271 S.C. 171, 246 S.E.2d 176 (1978). Additionally, respondent offered the testimony of two experts, both mechanical engineers, on the issue of negligent design.

Dr. Rolin Barrett, of Raleigh, North Carolina, testified he had read the Eolkin Reports and had performed additional tests which established the feasibility of a drilled or vented stopper. He also testified concerning the feasibility of a design alternative using a tethered stopper which would prevent injury in the event of premature ejection.

Dr. James Somerset, a professor at Syracuse University, testified about the results of experiments he had performed using Jacques Bonet products. A filmed experiment conducted by Dr. Somerset was introduced into evidence to further illustrate the alleged propensity of Jacques Bonet sparkling wines to prematurely eject their stoppers.

In light of the conclusions contained in the Eolkin Reports and the expert testimony offered by Gasque, we hold that sufficient competent evidence existed to warrant submission of the issue of negligent design to the jury.

1-B

Negligent Manufacture

The stopper which allegedly struck Gasque in the eye was introduced into evidence and was identified by several witnesses by an indentation or groove on its top. Respondent's expert, Dr. Barrett, testified the indentation distinguished it from other Jacques Bonet Cold Duck stoppers. Dr. Barrett testified the groove was caused by the improper attachment of the wire retainer to the stopper during manufacture, and that this manufacturing defect contributed to the premature ejection of the stopper. HEUBLEIN's own witness, Peter Tan, acknowledged the purpose of the wire retainer was to secure the stopper so it would not eject spontaneously.

We hold there was evidence from which the jury could have reasonably concluded appellants' improper placement of the wire hood on the stopper during bottling, as evidenced by the groove, proximately caused the stopper's premature ejection. The trial court properly submitted the issue of negligent manufacture for the jury's resolution.

1-C

Negligent Inspection

HEUBLEIN's Quality Control Director, Peter Tan, testified that quality control personnel had one or two seconds to ascertain whether or not the wire hood was properly affixed to the stopper. Additionally, Tan testified a pressure check was performed upon only one out of every 30,000 to 40,000 bottles on the assembly line.

This testimony, when considered with respondent's evidence concerning the asymmetrical placement of the wire hood upon the stopper, gave rise to the reasonable inference that HEUBLEIN's quality control personnel were negligent in their inspection of this particular bottle. We hold this issue was correctly submitted to the jury.

1-D

Negligent Failure to Warn

The following information is contained on the back of the Jacques Bonet Cold Duck bottle:

CAUTION: Our sparkling wines contain natural high pressure and should be served well-chilled. Hold stopper firmly while removing wire, pointing bottle away from people.

The bottle with its warning was placed into evidence for the jury's consideration. HEUBLEIN's expert witness, Dr. Daniel Carroll, acknowledged the print size of the warning was approximately 1/8 the size of the print used to advertise the product's name. Additionally, the warning does not mention the premature ejection problem recognized by HEUBLEIN in...