Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Arkansas v. Adcox
| Decision Date | 01 October 1934 |
| Docket Number | 4-3538 |
| Citation | 74 S.W.2d 771,189 Ark. 610 |
| Parties | COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF ARKANSAS v. ADCOX |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court; S. M. Bone, Judge; affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
S Hubert Mayes, for appellant.
Claude M. Erwin, Jr., for appellee.
This action was begun by appellee in the Jackson Circuit Court against the appellant, Coca-Cola Bottling Company, to recover for personal injuries caused by drinking a part of a bottle of Coca-Cola which contained foreign substances, alleged to be glass and hairs.
It was alleged that appellee purchased from the Missouri Pacific Restaurant at Newport, Arkansas, a bottle of Coca-Cola which had been manufactured, bottled and delivered to the said Missouri Pacific Restaurant by the appellant, Coca-Cola Bottling Company, which was to be offered for sale as a beverage for human consumption by the said restaurant; that, instead of being wholesome and good for human consumption, said bottle of Coca-Cola purchased by appellee had been negligently manufactured and negligently bottled, and was unwholesome, poisonous, and wholly unfit for human use, in that said bottle contained putrid and foreign substances, among which were hairs, having the appearance of bristles from a brush, and pieces of broken glass, poisonous and deleterious, which had been negligently permitted to enter and remain in said bottle, by the appellant; that appellee drank of said bottle of Coca-Cola without knowledge of its unwholesome condition, and did not know that it contained any foreign or unwholesome substances until he had drunk about one-half of the contents of said bottle; that, by reason of taking the said unwholesome Coca-Cola in his stomach, appellee immediately became violently ill, cramping and sick at his stomach, and was so violently ill that it was necessary for him to go to bed for care and medical attention. Further allegations were made with reference to appellee's injuries.
The appellant filed answer denying the allegations of the complaint, and pleaded the contributory negligence of appellee. There was a trial by jury, and a verdict and judgment for $ 1,000. The case is here on appeal.
The evidence of appellee tended to show the facts alleged in the complaint, and the testimony offered by appellant tended to show that there was no carelessness or negligence in the manufacturing and bottling of the Coca-Cola.
Only two questions are presented for our consideration. The appellant contends, first, that the court erred in admitting the bottle from which appellee drank the alleged impure Coca-Cola, and, second, that the verdict is excessive. There is no contention that the evidence is not sufficient to support a verdict for the appellee.
When appellee offered the bottle in evidence, the appellant objected. Appellant states that the case falls squarely within the rule announced by this court in Hooks v General Storage & Transfer Company, 187 Ark. 887, 63 S.W.2d 527. It is stated in that case: "According to the uncontradicted testimony in this case, the photographs of the two trucks which were in the collision were not taken until a week or ten days after the collision, and at that time appellant's ice truck had been fully repaired." The photographs in that case were inadmissible because the truck had been repaired, and the photograph did not show the condition of the truck at the time of the injury. If the photographs had been taken before the trucks were repaired, and if the evidence had shown that at the time the photographs were taken there had been no change, the photographs would have been admissible. In the instant case, the appellee testified that he took the bottle that he drank from and poured the Coca-Cola out, and that naturally it rinsed some of the contents out, but there is some in there yet; that he corked the bottle up and put it away. When he was asked if it was sealed in that condition, he said: "Absolutely." On cross-examination he was asked if it had some Coca-Cola in it, he said "Yes," and he poured it out. He also testified that he put a top on it; that several persons saw him do this, and he took it up to Mr. Claude Erwin, and it had been in Mr. Erwin's safe ever since that time; that the bottle was in the same condition it was when he delivered it to Mr. Erwin.
Mr. Erwin testified that the bottle was given to him by Adcox, and that it had been in his safe until the morning of the trial, when he brought it to the trial, and that it was in the same condition that it was when Adcox gave it to him.
It was not error for ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carroll v. Lanza
...entitled to recover damages therefor. The rule of damages applicable to personal injuries is stated in Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Arkansas v. Adcox, 189 Ark. 610, 613, 74 S.W.2d 771, 772, as "The measure of damages for a physical injury to the person may be broadly stated to be such sum, so ......
-
Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Daniel, 5--4903
... ... 849 ... SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, ... Richard A. DANIEL, Appellee ... No. 3 ... Supreme Court of Arkansas" ... May 5, 1969 ... Rehearing Denied June 9, 1969 ... \xC2" ... We quoted from Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Arkansas v. Adcox, ... 189 Ark. 610, 74 ... ...
-
Fritz v. Baptist Memorial Health Care Corp.
...S.W.3d 754 (2004). Further, the amount of an award of damages rests largely within the discretion of the jury. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Adcox, 189 Ark. 610, 74 S.W.2d 771 (1934). As noted, the cross-appeal is conditional and needs to be addressed only in the event that the court decides to......
-
Kisor v. Tulsa Rendering Co.
...130 Ark. 406, 197 S.W. 709. The rule of damages applicable to personal injuries is stated in Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Arkansas v. Adcox, 189 Ark. 610, at page 613, 74 S.W.2d 771, at page 772, as "The measure of damages for a physical injury to the person may be broadly stated to be such su......