Beaumont Coca Cola Bottling Co. v. Guillot, 4604.
| Decision Date | 16 June 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. 4604.,4604. |
| Citation | 222 S.W.2d 141 |
| Parties | BEAUMONT COCA COLA BOTTLING CO. v. GUILLOT. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Jefferson County; W. S. Nichols, Judge.
Suit by L. J. Guillot against the Beaumont Coca Cola Bottling Company to recover for damages allegedly sustained by reason of plaintiff's having drunk a portion of a bottle of soft drink containing a piece of bandage or gauze. From a judgment for the plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
Cecil & Keith, Beaumont, for appellant.
O'Fiel & O'Fiel, Beaumont, for appellee.
Appellee brought this suit in the district court of Jefferson County, Texas, to recover the sum of $2500 alleged to have been his damages sustained by reason of his having drunk a portion of a bottle of Coca Cola that he had previously purchased in which he found a piece of bandage or gauze which had so contaminated the contents of the bottle as to cause him to retch, vomit and suffer great physical distress. Appellee's suit was pitched upon the theory of negligence specifically in failing to properly clean and sterilize the bottle prior to the use thereof, and an allegation of general negligence invoking the rule of res ipsa loquitur.
Appellant answered by a general denial. Upon the trial the jury found that the bottle of Coca Cola purchased by the appellee was contaminated; that he partook of such liquid and was thereby caused to be made sick; that in the manufacture of the Coca Cola the appellant, the defendant below, failed to use ordinary care which was a proximate cause of appellee's injuries and his damages were set at $250. Appellant's amended motion for new trial having been timely presented and overruled, this cause is now properly before this court for review. The substance of appellant's complaint is that there was no evidence to support the finding of the jury to the effect that in the manufacture of the Coca Cola the appellant failed to use ordinary care.
The pleadings of the appellee with reference to the cause of action is as follows: "That the illness and damages above described and related came about through negligence upon the part of the defendant in failing to properly clean and sterilize bottles used by them in the bottling of said drinks prior to their use and re-sale to the public or if plaintiff be mistaken then such illness and damages were the result of acts of omission or commission peculiarly known to the defendant alone, each and all of the instruments and machinery used by said defendant in the bottling of said drink being under exclusive supervision and control of defendant and this plaintiff having no part in the direction or control of same; and that such acts of omission and commission, whether specifically stated or unknown to this plaintiff are the direct and proximate result of plaintiff's damages and but for which same would not have happened or occurred."
Upon the trial of the cause it was stipulated between the parties that the bottling of these drinks, a soft drink known as Coca Cola is and was during April, 1948, conducted under the exclusive control of the Beaumont Coca Cola Bottling Company. A brief summary of the other evidence offered by appellee is as follows: — By the plaintiff: That upon the day in question, that is, about April 19, 1948, he purchased a bottle of Coca Cola from a dispensing machine at the Texas Company, Fort Neches Plant, and that the only thing he had to do in connection therewith was that he and several fellow employees went up to the Coke dispensing machine and procured a bottle of Coca Cola, taking the cap off and taking several drinks therefrom when he noticed an object in the bottle of Coca Cola. The plaintiff then took the bottle on to work with him and was able to complete the remainder of his work that day, but that he felt ill and his stomach was in an uproar. He then went to see Dr. Durden who gave him a prescription and that each time the plaintiff sees a bottle of Coca Cola he now experiences nausea; that when the bottle came from the machine the cap was on and that he took the cap from the bottle immediately after taking it from the machine, and that he did not put anything into the bottle. Hubbard Smith, a witness for appellee, testified that he was President of the Texaco Club; that there is a Coca Cola dispenser on the Texaco Club premises at the Fort Neches Plant that was installed by the Club after having purchased the same from the Coca Cola Bottling Company; that he was not in town on the 19th of April, the day of the occurrence in question, but that the machine was there; that he had been president of the club for quite some time and described the usual course whereby the Texaco Club acquired the Coca Cola for use in the machine. He stated that the bottling company came by and left full cases for the number of empty cases present; that the bottles of Coca Cola were not opened before placing them in the machine; that he would lose money if we...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mobil Chemical Co. v. Bell
...Inc. v. McNabb, 222 S.W.2d 274 (Tex.Civ.App.--Eastland 1949, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Beaumont Coca Cola Bottling Co. v. Guillot, 222 S.W.2d 141 (Tex.Civ.App.--Beaumont 1949, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Hensley v. Fort Worth and Denver Railway Co., 408 S.W.2d 761 (Tex.Civ.App.--Fort Worth 1966, writ ref......
-
Ashland Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Byrne
...Co., La.App., 45 So.2d 442; Norman v. Jefferson City Coca-Cola Bottling Co., Mo.App., 211 S.W.2d 552; Beaumont Coca Cola Bottling Co. v. Guillot, Tex.Civ.App., 222 S.W.2d 141; Norfolk Coca-Cola Bottling Works v. Land, 189 Va. 35, 52 S.E.2d I am authorized to state that Judge MILLIKEN joins ......
-
Keystone-Fleming Transport, Inc. v. City of Tahoka
...of appellant at the time appellee received its damages, a similar contention was made in the case of Beaumont Coca Cola Bottling Co. v. Guillot, Tex.Civ.App., 222 S.W.2d 141, 144, when the court said in 'Appellant further contends that since the offending object which inflicted the injury w......
-
Asher v. Coca Cola Bottling Co.
...or other sealed container, contains a foreign substance. Eisenbeiss v. Payne, 42 Ariz. 262, 25 P.2d 162; Beaumont Coca Cola Bottling Co. v. Guillot (Tex.Civ.App.), 222 S.W.2d 141; Crystal Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Cathey, 83 Ariz. 163, 317 P.2d 1094, 1098. In the last case cited the court d......