## Facts

- Two pro se plaintiffs alleged they began consuming large quantities of Budweiser in the late 1960s and early 1970s after being “lured” by advertising and marketing.
- Plaintiffs claimed they believed consumption was safe because of defendant’s promotional representations.
- Plaintiffs alleged the manufacturer negligently failed to warn and fraudulently concealed alcohol’s negative effects and addictiveness.
- Plaintiffs alleged breach of express warranty based on an asserted guarantee that Budweiser and its alcohol content were safe and non-addictive.
- Plaintiffs sought $1 billion in compensatory damages and $1 billion in punitive damages for alleged consequences of long-term alcohol abuse (including incarceration, family and job losses, and alcoholism).

## Issues

1. Whether a beer manufacturer can be liable in negligence or products liability for failing to warn adult consumers of alcohol’s dangers and addictiveness.
2. Whether claims for fraud or fraudulent concealment are viable where the alleged misrepresentations are generalized marketing and the risks of alcohol are commonly known.
3. Whether advertising slogans or generalized promotional statements can create an enforceable express warranty that alcohol is safe or non-addictive.
4. Whether public policy and causation principles bar shifting responsibility for harms from voluntary alcohol consumption from the drinker to the manufacturer.

## Decision

- The court granted the manufacturer’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion and dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.
- The court held the dangers associated with alcohol are open and obvious matters of common knowledge, negating any duty to warn adult consumers.
- The court held plaintiffs’ voluntary consumption of alcohol was the legal cause of their injuries, functioning as a superseding cause that defeated causation as to the manufacturer.
- The court rejected the fraud theories because plaintiffs did not plead actionable, specific misrepresentations and could not plausibly show justifiable reliance given common knowledge of alcohol’s risks.
- The court rejected the express-warranty theory because plaintiffs identified no concrete affirmation of fact amounting to a warranty of safety or non-addictiveness; marketing language did not create such a warranty.
- The court treated these conclusions as dispositive issues of law making further pleading futile.

## Legal Principles

- On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, allegations are taken as true and viewed favorably to the plaintiff, but dismissal is proper where a dispositive legal bar prevents relief.
- A manufacturer generally has no duty to warn of risks that are open, obvious, and commonly known to ordinary consumers.
- For injuries linked to adult alcohol use, voluntary drinking may constitute a superseding cause that breaks the chain of proximate causation to the manufacturer.
- Fraud requires specific, actionable misrepresentations and justifiable reliance; generalized promotional statements and claims inconsistent with common knowledge do not satisfy these elements.
- An express warranty requires a specific affirmation of fact or promise; slogans and general advertising puffery do not create a warranty that an alcoholic beverage is safe or non-addictive.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed all claims seeking to hold a beer manufacturer responsible for the plaintiffs’ alcoholism-related harms, reasoning that alcohol’s dangers are commonly understood, voluntary consumption defeats causation, and the pleaded fraud and warranty theories failed as a matter of law.


Bruner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 153 F. Supp. 2d 1358 (S.D. Fla. 2001)