Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An 1814 Beer Flood that Killed Eight People

smithsonianmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–27 of 27 posts

Re: An 1814 Beer Flood that Killed Eight People

#21

Post by _jal »

brianwawok wrote: post #11
cr0sh wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Jurors declared the beer flood an "unavoidable act of God," writes Tingle. I'd really like to see the transcript of that trial. I'd like to know how the owners of the brewery and their lawyer spun things so as to escape all culpability. An accident is an accident, of course - I doubt they meant this to happen. But there must have been some laxity in inspection of the vats, or some kind of problem in the constructio…

Consumer rights were not quite so strong back then....

And PR flacks had yet to fully develop the art of blaming third-party contractors whose primary function is to serve as a legal cutout, leaving god to take more heat is customary than today.

Re: An 1814 Beer Flood that Killed Eight People

#22

Post by em3rgent0rdr »

brianwawok wrote: post #11
cr0sh wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Jurors declared the beer flood an "unavoidable act of God," writes Tingle. I'd really like to see the transcript of that trial. I'd like to know how the owners of the brewery and their lawyer spun things so as to escape all culpability. An accident is an accident, of course - I doubt they meant this to happen. But there must have been some laxity in inspection of the vats, or some kind of problem in the constructio…

Consumer rights were not quite so strong back then....

"consumer rights" wouldn't be a relevant issue in this case, even today, considering that the people killed weren't necessarily customers.

Re: An 1814 Beer Flood that Killed Eight People

#23

Post by em3rgent0rdr »

cr0sh wrote: post #6
oseph wrote: post #4

That last paragraph is a bit of a bummer. After all the beer was mopped up, the company that owned the brewery did just fine. It "received a waiver from the British Parliament for excise taxes it had already paid on the thousands of barrels of beer it lost," writes History.com–meaning it didn't have to pay taxes on the equivalent amount of beer when it brewed in future. Jurors declared the beer flood an "unavoidable…

> Jurors declared the beer flood an "unavoidable act of God," writes Tingle. I'd really like to see the transcript of that trial. I'd like to know how the owners of the brewery and their lawyer spun things so as to escape all culpability. An accident is an accident, of course - I doubt they meant this to happen. But there must have been some laxity in inspection of the vats, or some kind of problem in the constructio…

> "there must have been some laxity in inspection of the vats, or some kind of problem in the construction and/or materials (which wouldn't fall on the brewery, most likely, but on the construction/engineering firm they used to construct the vats)."

Well they probably didn't have sufficient construction/engineering knowledge back then to make such a determination of negligence anyway. Conceivably, the vat could have been constructed according to the standard for that time.

Re: An 1814 Beer Flood that Killed Eight People

#24

Post by cat199 »

Completely unrelatedly and much less tragically, I recall a story from my uncle about the 'great wapanucka train wreck of 65 or maybe it was 66' whereby several freight cars of beer were derailed, spilling their freight into the surrounding fields.

Apparently, or so the story goes anyway, some of the more resourceful people who heard of the incident drove up to the scene that night, filling entire pickup trucks and cars with cans of beer, and most of the nearby university he was attending was drunk for a week.

Re: An 1814 Beer Flood that Killed Eight People

#25

Post by Avshalom »

LordKano wrote: post #20
brianwawok wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consumer rights were not quite so strong back then....

Consumer rights, perhaps not but property rights may well have been stronger.

(n.b. American) In 1814 the king may still have technically owned everything (including the people) involved.

Re: An 1814 Beer Flood that Killed Eight People

#26

Post by Avshalom »

honestoHeminway wrote: post #18
cr0sh wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Jurors declared the beer flood an "unavoidable act of God," writes Tingle. I'd really like to see the transcript of that trial. I'd like to know how the owners of the brewery and their lawyer spun things so as to escape all culpability. An accident is an accident, of course - I doubt they meant this to happen. But there must have been some laxity in inspection of the vats, or some kind of problem in the constructio…

Its the doctors final statement, that the drowned one, had not only his stomache, but also his lungs full of the stolen beer- that revealed the drowned mother of four to be a horrible drunkard and morally lower creature. Thus it should be stated, that the family (which smells like drunkards too, your honor) can grant itself lucky to not recive a fine for the private vices on a public tsunami. I rest my case. PS: The…

>>PS: The whisky must have tasted like the city, of burning wood, horse menure and burning sock.

Hey I pay good money for lagavulin.

Post reply on HN