## Facts

- An eight-year-old child, Louis Venezia, found a clear, non-returnable Miller High Life glass bottle that had been discarded by unknown persons.
- While playing, Louis threw the bottle against a telephone pole.
- The bottle shattered on impact, and glass particles entered Louis’s eye, causing severe injury.
- Louis (through his mother) sued the brewer and several glass manufacturers, alleging the bottle was “thin walled” and should have been designed to better withstand foreseeable misuse by children.
- The claims alleged negligence, gross negligence, and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under Massachusetts law.

## Issues

1. Whether the implied warranty of merchantability (Mass. G.L. c. 106, § 2-314) is breached when a discarded beer bottle shatters after being intentionally thrown against a telephone pole, injuring a child.
2. Whether product designers and manufacturers owe a duty, under negligence or gross negligence theories, to design a glass beer bottle to safely withstand foreseeable misuse consisting of children throwing it against a fixed object.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
- The complaint did not plausibly allege breach of the implied warranty of merchantability because the injury arose from a non-ordinary use of the bottle.
- The complaint did not plausibly allege negligence or gross negligence because there was no legally cognizable duty to design a glass bottle that would not shatter when deliberately hurled against a telephone pole.
- The court did not reach whether the complaint’s failure to identify which glass manufacturer made the specific bottle was an independent ground for dismissal.

## Legal Principles

- Under Mass. G.L. c. 106, § 2-314, implied merchantability requires that goods be fit for their “ordinary purposes,” assessed by ordinary use and handling.
- A product’s “ordinary purpose” limits warranty coverage; the implied warranty does not extend to injuries caused by manifestly improper or dangerous uses unrelated to the product’s ordinary function.
- In product design negligence, foreseeability has limits; manufacturers are not required to make products safe against deliberate, dangerous misuse that is qualitatively different from ordinary use.
- The mere fact that a glass container breaks when intentionally thrown against a fixed object does not, without more, allege an actionable defect in design or manufacture tied to ordinary expected use.

## Conclusion

Because the pleaded facts described injury from intentional, non-ordinary misuse of a discarded glass bottle rather than unfitness for ordinary use as a beverage container or a breach of any design duty recognized by law, the complaint failed to state claims for breach of implied warranty, negligence, or gross negligence, and dismissal was affirmed.


Venezia v. Miller Brewing Co., 626 F.2d 188 (1st Cir. 1980)