Anderson v. Tyler
| Decision Date | 15 June 1937 |
| Docket Number | 43793. |
| Citation | 274 N.W. 48,223 Iowa 1033 |
| Parties | ANDERSON v. TYLER et al. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Montgomery County; H. J. Mantz, Judge.
This is an action to recover damages for sickness on the part of Paul Anderson, alleged to have been caused by drinking from a bottle of Coca-Cola in which was found a mouse. On submission to a jury a verdict was found for the plaintiff, and the defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
W. C Ratcliff and R. J. Swanson, both of Red Oak, for appellants.
Clifford Powell, of Red Oak, for appellee.
The two defendants in this case are partners, operating under the name of Tyler Bros., and engaged in the business of bottling and wholesaling soft drinks, among them that beverage known as Coca-Cola. Previously to the occurrences out of which this action grew, defendants had sold to a country club near Red Oak certain cases of Coca-Cola. This country club was under the management of one Kroese, who dispensed Coca-Cola and such other drinks as patrons of the club chose to call for.
On June 9, 1935, the country club had what was called an " open day," on which occasion devotees of golf were generally invited to be present and participate. Among those who resorted to the club was the plaintiff, who, with three others, set out on their first round of nine holes of golf which they completed about 10 o'clock in the morning. Having done so, they resorted to the refreshment stand, which at the moment was in charge of one Larson who was working under the caretaker, Kroese. The plaintiff purchased a bottle of Coca-Cola at the stand maintained by the club. After drinking a part of the contents of the bottle and finding it distasteful he discovered a mouse in the bottle. He then and there reported the incident to those in charge of the stand, and placed the bottle with the mouse and the remaining Coca-Cola in a locker at the clubhouse. After drinking, plaintiff attempted to continue his golf game, but after a few minutes quit and went to Red Oak to consult a doctor. This physician treated him, and sealed the bottle containing the mouse. On Wednesday following the plaintiff developed sore throat, diarrhea, and other disabilities which need not be set out but which abundantly warranted the verdict returned by the jury. It became necessary for the plaintiff to leave his work, and he lost about twenty pounds in weight. Two doctors testified that in their opinion plaintiff's condition was the direct result of drinking the contaminated beverage.
It will be seen from the foregoing statement that this cause presents for decision that question which has so often been before the courts, to wit: What is the liability of a manufacturer or packer of a defective article, for injury to the person of the ultimate consumer who purchased from a middleman? This question has so frequently arisen in the various jurisdictions as to make it impossible, as well as unnecessary, to undertake an analysis of even a small part of the decisions. Able counsel who have argued this case have seen the futility of attempting a detailed examination of the cases, and have been content to cite the notes in A.L.R., where the cases will be found gathered together.
We shall adopt the same method. See notes to the following cases: Windram Mfg. Co. v. Boston Blacking Co., 17 A.L.R. 669, at page 672; Heckel v. Ford Motor Co., 39 A.L.R. 989, at page 992; Minutilla v. Providence Ice Cream Co., 63 A.L.R. 334, at page 340; Baxter v. Ford Motor Co., 88 A.L.R. 521, at page 527; McSpedon v. Kunz, 105 A.L.R. 1497, at page 1502; supplemental decisions to the foregoing notes appearing in 1936 Supp. to A.L.R. Blue Book. As bearing on the question of presumption of negligence from foreign substances in food, see Fisher v. Washington Coca-Cola Bottling Works, 105 A.L.R. 1034, at page 1039, and supplemental decisions to this note in 1936 A.L.R. Blue Book.
The question has been before this court but once and that in Davis v. Van Camp Packing Co., 189 Iowa, 775, 176 N.W. 382, 17 A.L.R. 649.The exhaustive analysis there made of the question by Preston, Justice, and the thorough way in which he discussed the authorities then applicable, make it unnecessary that we should travel over the field again. We have re-examined the question in the light of the cases decided since, and we find no reason for departing from the principle announced in the Davis Case. While there is some difference of opinion in the courts of the various jurisdictions, the opinion of Justice Preston so far anticipated the trend of judicial opinion on this question that it finds abundant support in the majority of cases arising since it was announced.
The defendants, in the trial of this case, offered testimony minutely describing the process and the precautions under which the Coca-Cola sold to the country club was bottled; and they claim a degree of care which made it appear absolutely impossible that...
To continue reading
Request your trial