Broom v. Monroe Coca-cola Bottling Co

• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: BROGDEN
• Citation: Broom v. Monroe Coca-cola Bottling Co, 156 S.E. 152, 200 N.C. 55 (N.C. 1930)
• Decision Date: 19 December 1930
• Docket Number: No. 444.,444.
• Parties: BROOM. v. MONROE COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO.

156 S.E. 152

(200 N. C. 55)

BROOM.

v.MONROE COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO.

No. 444.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 19, 1930.

Appeal from Superior Court, Union County; McElroy, Judge.

Action by G. W. Broom against the Monroe Coca-Cola Bottling Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

No error.

The plaintiff offered evidence tending to show that on July 19, 1929, he bought a bottle of Coca-Cola from G. W. Helms, a merchant. He opened the bottle, and began drinking the beverage, when he discovered that there was some foreign substance in the drink. Upon examination, it was discovered that the bottle contained broken glass and oil. There was further evidence tending to show that the plaintiff immediately became violently sick and was attended by a physician, and that later glass passed through his stomach and bowels. causing internal laceration and great pain and suffering. The plaintiff offered evidence tending to show that on or about July, 1928, a bottle of Coca-Cola bottled by defendant contained a chew of tobacco, and that in March or April, 1929, another bottle of Coca-Cola bottled and sold by the defendant contained a fly, and there was other testimony that other bottles contained paper and trash.

The defendant offered evidence tending to show that the plant at which said beverage was bottled and prepared for sale was modern and up to date in every particular and equipped with the best machinery available for bottling purposes, and that every precaution was taken in the process of bottling Coca-Cola to keep the bottles clean and eliminate all foreign substances from the bottled product.

The usual issues of negligence, contributory negligence, and damages were submitted to the jury and answered in favor of plaintiff, who was awarded the sum of $2,000 damages.

From judgment upon the verdict, the defendant appealed.

Vann & Milliken, of Monroe, for appellant.

John C. Sikes and C. E. Hamilton, both of Monroe, for appellee.

BROGDEN, J.

The measure of liability imposed by the law upon the bottler and seller of Coca-Cola has been established in Perry v. Bottling Co., 196 N. C. 175, 145 S. E. 14; Perry v. Bottling Co., 196 N. C. 690, 146 S. E. 805; Harper v. Bullock, 198 N. C. 448, 152 S. E. 405. See, also, annotation, 63 A. L. R. p. 340.

The evidence brings this case within the rule of liability announced in the Perry Cases, supra.

The trial judge declined to permit the defendant to offer evidence to the effect that it had received no notice from...