by Sterling Anthony, CPP, expert in packaging, logistics, marketing, human-factors, and warnings.
Synopsis
A national retailer wanted to carry a liquid cocktail mix and approached a national brand-owner about developing such a product. The brand-owner contracted with a packaging development firm. The packaging development firm designed a concept that consisted of a bottle, label, safety seal, and cap, and then chose suppliers for each component. The brand-owner, however, chose the contract packager that formulated, processed, packaged, and shipped the product.
Not long after the launch, the retailer experienced “leakers” that not only spoiled the appearance of the packaging but also stained the store shelves. The problem worsened, eventually leading to a product recall and a discontinuance of the product, altogether.
The brand-owner sued the packaging development firm and the contract packager for recovery of loss profits, alleging negligence.
I was retained by the Defense attorney for the packaging development firm.
Opinions
The packaging development firm followed a process that resulted in packaging consisting of components that were mutually compatible and designed within tight tolerances.
The various suppliers manufactured the components within specifications.
The contract packager was not experienced in the filling of liquids into packages and the sealing of same, and operated with inadequate quality-assurance.
It was the sealing operation, specifically, that allowed leakers to later develop in the field.
Well-designed packaging is nonetheless undermined by inadequate filling and sealing operations.
All of the field reports, including photos taken in the stores and other locations throughout the supply-chain. showed that the leaking was occurring around the sealed cap.
The quality-assurance at the contract packaging firm had inadequacies that allowed the inferior seals to enter the stream of commerce, undetected at the source.
It was the responsibility of the brand-owner to evaluate the fitness of the contract packager.
The packaging development firm was not responsible for the inadequacies of the contract packaging nor was the former involved in the choosing of the latter.
Result
The packaging development firm Defendant was dropped from the case.
Sterling Anthony can be contacted through: 100 Renaissance Center- Box 176, Detroit, MI 48243; 313-531-1875; www.thepackagingexpertwitness.com; thepackagingexpertwitness@gmail.com