Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
April McElroy purchased a bottle of Mumm Napa Valley Brut Rose sparkling wine at a Chula Vista CVS in December 2021. She did not chill the bottle. When she tried to open it with two helpers, the cork would not come out, and the top of the cork eventually broke off. She read the label looking for guidance, then used a corkscrew on the remaining cork piece. As the corkscrew turned, the top of the bottle blew off, and the jagged glass deeply lacerated her left hand. The bottle and cork were discarded by a third party while she went for medical treatment.
She sued the producer (Pernod Ricard USA), the distributor (Southern Glazer’s), and the retailer (CVS) under California products-liability law for strict liability (manufacturing defect, design defect, failure to warn) and for negligence. The defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims and both sides moved to exclude certain experts. The court held argument on January 23, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted summary judgment in part and denied it in part.
On the manufacturing-defect claim, McElroy abandoned the theory at the hearing, and the claim was dismissed.
On the design-defect claim (using the consumer-expectations test), the court ruled that the design choice — using a cork to seal a pressurized bottle — was not the proximate cause of McElroy’s injury. The bottle and cork were intact when she and others tried to remove the cork by hand. The injury happened only when a corkscrew was used. Whatever risks the cork-and-pressurized-bottle design presents, the proximate cause of the laceration was the corkscrew use, not the design. Whether the corkscrew use was reasonable (and whether the label adequately warned against it) is a separate failure-to-warn question.
On the failure-to-warn claims (both strict liability and negligence), the court denied summary judgment. Pernod’s labels had varied considerably over time, including warnings against using corkscrews. Pernod knew that some consumers used corkscrews on broken corks and had been injured. McElroy testified that the label on her bottle did not warn against using a corkscrew. The court ruled that her testimony — even though the bottle was destroyed and constitutes only her word about the label — created a genuine factual dispute about (1) whether the danger was known to the defendants, (2) whether it was obvious to ordinary consumers, (3) what the actual label said, and (4) whether the warning was adequate. The court declined to dismiss on a spoliation theory because McElroy did not control the bottle when it was destroyed.
On the negligence claim alleging failure to follow industry standards for storing and distributing non-vintage sparkling wines, the court granted summary judgment. The plaintiff’s only evidence of “industry standards” was an expert who cited no actual industry guidelines, regulations, or manufacturer practices to support his self-created storage rules. A consumer-facing G.H. Mumm website about home champagne storage did not establish wholesale or retail industry standards. Without evidence of an actual standard, no jury could reasonably find a duty-of-care violation.
On the expert motions, the court excluded the negligence expert because the underlying claim was dismissed and excluded both sides’ failure-to-warn experts because the question of whether the warning was adequate is one for the jury without expert assistance.
Key Takeaways
- The proximate-cause analysis matters in California design-defect cases. Even an arguably risky product design will not support liability if the actual injury was caused by an intervening consumer act with the product (here, using a corkscrew on a pressurized bottle).
- Failure-to-warn claims can survive summary judgment based on the plaintiff’s own testimony about the label, even when the product was discarded. Spoliation will not dismiss the case if the plaintiff did not control the evidence at the time of disposal.
- Negligence claims based on “industry standards” require actual evidence of industry practice — published guidelines, trade-association recommendations, regulator-approved norms. Self-created standards by a retained expert do not suffice.
- Failure-to-warn questions about whether average consumers know how to safely use everyday consumer products are typically jury questions, not expert questions. Expert testimony on warning adequacy may be excluded under Federal Rule 702.
Why It Matters
This decision is a useful illustration of how California products-liability cases are split apart at the summary-judgment stage. Strict-liability and negligence theories that sound similar at the complaint stage often diverge sharply when the court asks the proximate-cause and standard-of-care questions. Plaintiffs in similar cases should plead failure-to-warn theories carefully, since they often present the strongest path to a jury when the product itself functions as designed.
For California consumer-product manufacturers, distributors, and retailers, the case is a useful reminder that label history matters. Pernod’s labels showed an awareness of the corkscrew-use risk going back over a decade, which is exactly the kind of evidence that supports a failure-to-warn case. Companies that learn of injury patterns should update their warnings and ensure consistent application across product lines.