Bacardi 151 is not “intended” for use in “flaming rum” shows, its manufacturer argues in denying responsibility for burn injuries suffered by a Miami club patron when a bottle of rum allegedly turned into a “flame thrower.”

“Igniting [Bacardi 151] with any kind of flame for any purpose is not an intended use” and the “product was indisputably not put to an intended use” during the incident that injured Danielle Alleyne in August 2002, Bacardi Corp. says in a motion to dismiss Alleyne's unusual products liability suit.

The issue may be pivotal to the case, which is pending in Miami federal court, because a manufacturer can only be held strictly liable for a defective product if the product was being used for its intended purpose. Bacardi's 151-proof rum is “produced and intended for consumption,” the company insists.

The product is equipped with a metal “flame arrester” in the neck of the bottle. But Alleyne claims the arrester had been removed from a Bacardi 151 bottle that a bartender at Miami's Secrets adult nightclub used as part of a “flaming run” show.

While the bartender was preparing “flaming shots,” the complaint says, a flame “shot into the bottle, as if up a wick, and ignited the entire bottle of 151 rum, which became a 'flame thrower.'” Alleyne and three other patrons suffered 2nd- and 3rd-degree burns.

The plaintiff relies on the theory that Bacardi 151 is designed not only as a drink but also “to ignite and burn as a gimmick.” Bacardi, she says, is “well aware” of its use in fire shows and is liable for failing to

manufacture and distribute this product in a way that prevented it from becoming in the normal and foreseeable course of its use ... a flame thrower.

“This same defect in the bottle has been injuring people around the country for years and they have done nothing to make this bottle safe when they know of the dangers,” plaintiff's attorney Robert Dickman Jr. said.

The defense likely has the stronger argument, however, because, among other things, the bottle's label warns that “Removing the flame arrester may cause the content of the bottle to become ignited.”

If “manufacturers could be held liable because a third party ignores their warnings and disarms their safety devices, then manufacturers can never protect themselves from baseless suits,” Bacardi argues.

The company has also moved to dismiss similar claims filed by two of the other patrons burned at Secrets.

By Matthew Heller
9/28/06