Corum v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 11 October 1933 |
| Docket Number | 210. |
| Parties | CORUM v. R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO., Inc. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Yadkin County; Michael Schenck, Judge.
Action by James C. Corum against the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company Inc. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
No error.
Manufacturer of plug of tobacco, in which fishhook was embedded, held liable for injuries caused thereby to one purchasing plug from retailer, though tobacco is not food nor fishhook poison.
The defendant manufactures a brand of plug or chewing tobacco known as "Apple Sun-cured." It sold some of this tobacco to J. W. Smitherman, a wholesale merchant in Winston-Salem, who in turn sold it to Norman Brothers at Eastbend, in Yadkin county. On June 4, 1931, the plaintiff bought a plug of it from Norman Brothers and returned to his home, which is about a mile from Eastbend. He offered evidence tending to show that at 1:30 o'clock while going back to Eastbend he put a part of the plug in his mouth to bite off a chew, and "jerked the tobacco," when a fishhook which was embedded in the plug "stuck on the inner side of his lip and came out on the outside"; that with the fishhook and the tobacco he went to a physician who removed the hook; that after its removal, the plaintiff "prized the tobacco open" and found a mark inside "where the fishhook had been lying"; that on the end of the hook there was a piece of string about two inches long; that he suffered pain, was given antitoxin to prevent tetanus, had difficulty in opening and closing his mouth, and complained of stiffness in his jaw and neck.
The defendant introduced witnesses who explained the process of manufacture by the approved methods of modern machinery, and offered testimony tending to show that the defendant was not negligent but used due care in the manufacture of its products, and that the plaintiff's injury was not the result of any neglect of duty on its part.
The defendant in apt time moved to dismiss the action as in case of nonsuit; the motion was denied, and the defendant excepted.
Two issues were submitted to the jury and answered as follows:
Judgment for plaintiff; appeal by defendant. The several exceptions are referred to in the opinion.
Benbow & Hall, of Winston-Salem, for appellant.
Elledge & Wells, of Winston-Salem, and W. M. Allen, of Elkin, for appellee.
The appellant noted a number of exceptions during the trial, but the basal controversy relates to the motion for nonsuit; the defendant contending that the record contains no adequate evidence of negligence which is actionable. We have repeatedly held, in accord with the general principle, that the fact of personal injury is not regarded as proof either of negligence or of proximate cause, and that a mere conjecture will not support an action for damages. Grimes v. Coach Co., 203 N.C. 605, 166 S.E. 599; Rountree v. Fountain, 203 N.C. 381, 166 S.E. 329. The plaintiff, however, is not required to make out his case by direct proof, but may rely upon circumstances from which a reasonable inference of negligence may be drawn, Dail v. Taylor, 151 N.C. 284, 66 S.E. 135, 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 949; Perry v. Bottling Co., 196 N.C. 175, 145 S.E. 14, in which event the evidence must be interpreted most favorably for the plaintiff, and if it is of such character that reasonable men may form divergent opinions of its import it is customary to leave the issue to the ultimate award of the jury.
There are many decisions to the effect that one who prepares in bottles or packages foods, medicines, drugs, or beverages, and puts them on the market, is charged with the duty of exercising due care in the preparation of these commodities, and under certain circumstances may be liable in damages to the ultimate consumer. Broadway v. Grimes, 204 N.C. 623, 169 S.E. 194; Broom v. Bottling Co., 200 N.C. 55, 156 S.E. 152; Harper v. Bullock, 198 N.C. 448, 152 S.E. 405; Grant v. Bottling Co., 176 N.C. 256, 97 S.E. 27, 4 A. L. R. 1090; Cashwell v. Bottling Works, 174 N.C. 324, 93 S.E. 901.
In this case the plaintiff adduced evidences tending to show that the defendant is the sole manufacturer of "Apple Sun-cured Tobacco"; that the tobacco in question was of this brand and had the appearance of having recently come from the store; that it was protected by a wrapper; that all the wrapper had not been removed at the time of the injury; that when a part of it was torn away the imprint of a fishhook and a string which had been embedded in the plug of tobacco was discovered; that some other foreign substance had been found in the same brand of tobacco within two months preceding the injury; and that the foreman of the machine room had previously had complaints that other foreign substances had been left in the manufactured product. Perry v. Bottling Co. supra. Without the necessity of invoking the maxim res ipsa loquitur, the plaintiff introduced independent evidence which called...
To continue reading
Request your trial