Harzall did not have any of the bottles she purchased to admit in evidence, and she was the only witness to the occurrence. In addition, she did not produce any experts to support her contention that the Anheuser Busch should be held responsible for her injuries. Instead, Harzall sued Anheuser Busch under theories of strict liability, res ipsa loquitur, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and negligence on July 23, 2008. Anheuser Busch moved for summary judgment on October 2, 2009. The beer giant asserted that since the bottle shattered in Harzall's hand and was not under their exclusive control at all relevant times prior to Harzall's purchase, the company should not be held liable for her injuries.

Judge Richard Bennett first decided whether California law or Maryland law applied. While a federal court sitting in diversity must apply the choice-of-law provisions of the state in which it sits, Maryland recognizes the doctrine of lex loci delicti, where the law of the place of the injury applies. See Klaxton Co. v. Stentor Electric Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487, 496 (1941); Laboratory Corp. of America v. Hood, 911 A.2d 841, 845 (Md. 2006). Therefore, the Court applied California law. Incidentally, California and Maryland interpret the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur similarly. To be entitled to the presumption of negligence under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in California, the Plaintiff must show that (1) the accident was of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence, (2) the accident was caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant, and (3) the accident could not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff. Ybarra v. Spangard, 154 P.2d 687 (Cal. 1944).

Anheuser Busch argued that res ipsa loquitur did not apply because Harzall failed to establish the "exclusive control" prong of the test. In his analysis of the claim, Judge Bennett found that Harzall did not produce any evidence to show that the company's negligence was the most likely cause of the injury. Instead, the evidence suggests a myriad of possible third parties who may be held liable for Harzell's injuries. Multiple parties handled the beer before Harzell purchased the six pack at the gas station. Anheuser Busch may have bottled and delivered the beer to a distributor, but the distributor handled the beer and delivered it to the service station. After the service station obtained the beer, its employees handled the beer and stored it before Harzall's purchase. She had not proffered any evidence tending to show that Anheuser Bush's alleged negligence was the more likely explanation of her injury than the possible negligence of the other people who handled the beer before her purchase.

Judge Bennett viewed the fact that Anheuser Busch was not the company that delivered the beer to the gas station as key to the consideration of the motion. Markstein, a distributor of Anheuser Busch products, delivered the beer to the service station. Furthermore, the beer Harzell purchased had been in the store long enough to lower the beer's temperature. This fact indicates that the link between Anheuser Busch and Harzell's injury was attenuated. Finally, Harzell had exclusive control of the bottle from the time she purchased the beer until the time she opened it and sustained the injury. Judge Bennett found that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did not apply in this case and granted Anheuser Busch's Motion for Summary Judgment.