6 ms·
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 Br
by oseph 9y ago
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 act of God," writes Tingle. Those whose houses were destroyed and whose loved ones were lost received nothing from the government or the company.
All is fair in beer and spillages.
- cr0sh 9y ago> 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 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). Probably it was something like the latter - but given that they didn't have anything like accident forensics or any way to really examine the issue, "act of god" it was (in theory it could have been done, to an extent, with the tech of the day - but it wasn't likely it was thought of; such things wouldn't become regular until later in the century).
- brianwawok 9y agoConsumer rights were not quite so strong back then....
- chris_va 9y agoI'm curious if inspections were even a thing back then... This predates the era of locking your employees in during their shift.
- LordKano 9y agoConsumer rights, perhaps not but property rights may well have been stronger.
- Avshalom 9y ago(n.b. American) In 1814 the king may still have technically owned everything (including the people) involved.
- _jal 9y agoAnd 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.
- em3rgent0rdr 9y ago"consumer rights" wouldn't be a relevant issue in this case, even today, considering that the people killed weren't necessarily customers.
- honestoHeminway 9y agoIts 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 whisky must have tasted like the city, of burning wood, horse menure and burning sock.
- Avshalom 9y ago>>PS: The whisky must have tasted like the city, of burning wood, horse menure and burning sock. Hey I pay good money for lagavulin.
- em3rgent0rdr 9y ago> "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.