Cushing Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Francis
| Decision Date | 03 June 1952 |
| Docket Number | COCA-COLA,No. 34873,34873 |
| Citation | 206 Okla. 553,245 P.2d 84 |
| Parties | CUSHINGBOTTLING CO. v. FRANCIS. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Where the injuries are of such a character as to require skilled and professional men to determine the cause and extent thereof, the question is one of science, and must necessarily be determined by the testimony of skilled professional persons, and cannot be determined from the testimony of unskilled witnesses having no scientific knowledge of such injuries.
2. No recovery can be had for mental pain and anguish, which is not produced by, connected with, or the result of, some physical suffering or injury, to the person enduring the mental anguish. Damages for pain suffered mentally, as the result of a physical injury, are allowed, for the reason that such mental suffering is necessarily a part of the physical suffering and injury, and is inseparable therefrom.
Rittenhouse, Hanson, Evans & Turner, Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.
Brown Moore and Preston Moore, Stillwater, for defendant in error.
This is an action, brought by Luther Francis, as plaintiff, against the Cushing Coca-Cola Bottling Company, a corporation, as defendant, for damages resulting from his drinking a sip or two of a bottled coca-cola, in which, because of the alleged negligence of said defendant, there was a partially decomposed body of a mouse. Judgment for $1625 in conformity with the jury verdict, was rendered in favor of plaintiff and defendant has appealed. The parties will be referred to as they appeared in the trial court.
On March 24, 1949, plaintiff, a 46 year old man, was employed by A. and M. College Book Store in Stillwater, Oklahoma, as assistant manager. About the middle of the morning, on that day, the plaintiff and a traveling salesman, with whom he had transacted some business, went to a coin operated vending machine in the store to obtain and drink a bottled coca-cola each. Two were removed from the machine, one of which was handed to the plaintiff who took a swallow of it and then remarked that it didn't taste right. It was set back and plaintiff obtained another one which he drank. While he was getting the second one, his friend discovered and called plaintiff's attention to the partially decomposed body of a mouse in the first bottle. Plaintiff immediately became nauseated and went to the rest room where he vomited. He left his work and went home where he remained until the afternoon of the following day.
The only testimony as to what effect the experience had on him was that of plaintiff himself. He testified that it was several days before his appetite returned and also testified as follows:
* * *'
'* * * I have been unable to attend, to appear in spots where there are crowds, organizations, anything of that nature, because of the fact this subject is generally used, brought up, it is very nauseating, very sickening.
'Q. Explain what you mean by 'spots' or * * *'
This and other testimony contained in the record conclusively shows that the alleged injuries, for which plaintiff sought to recover, were of such a character that only an expert could testify as to their cause and extent.
Although several propositions are presented and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clark v. Josephson
...of medical testimony. The appellant cites three cases: Vaden v. Holmes, 39 Cal.App.2d 580, 103 P.2d 1002; Cushing Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Francis, 206 Okl. 553, 245 P.2d 84; Franklin v. Kansas City Public Service Co., 239 Mo.App. 151, 186 S.W.2d 546; as a basis for the contention that bef......
-
Kroger Co. v. Beck
...to discover a single case in any jurisdiction which is directly on point. The Oklahoma Supreme Court, in Cushing Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Francis (1952), 206 Okl. 553, 245 P.2d 84, was faced with the allegation that the plaintiff developed a phobia for all types of soft drinks dispensed in......
-
Franklin v. Shelton
...Evidence, § 858, p. 719. 7 St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Co. v. Bateman, 112 Okl. 86, 240 P. 110. 8 Cushing Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Francis, 206 Okl. 553, 245 P.2d 84; Spivey v. Atteberry, 205 Okl. 493, 238 P. 2d 814, 27 A.L.R.2d 1259; James I. Barnes Const. Co. v. Hargrove, 167 Okl.......
-
Davis v. Shell Oil Co.
...injury cases in support of this argument: Thompson v. Minnis, 201 Okl. 154, 202 P.2d 981 (Okla.1949), and Cushing Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Francis, 206 Okl. 553, 245 P.2d 84 (1952). As plaintiffs point out, both involve personal injury torts, and are distinguishable from nuisance. In City ......