Douglas v. First Nat. Stores, Inc.

• Decision Date: 18 May 1934
• Docket Number: No. 7451.,7451.
• Parties: DOUGLAS v. FIRST NAT. STORES, Inc.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

172 A. 723

DOUGLAS

v. FIRST NAT. STORES, Inc.

No. 7451.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

May 18, 1934.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; Herbert L. Carpenter, Judge.

Action by Charles Douglas against the First National Stores, Inc. A verdict was directed for defendant, and plaintiff brings exceptions.

Exceptions sustained, and case remitted for new trial.

George Helford, of New Bedford, Mass., for plaintiff.

Clifford A. Kingsley and Francis V. Reynolds, both of Providence, for defendant.

STEARNS, Chief Justice.

This action on the case for negligence is here on the exceptions of plaintiff to certain rulings on evidence and to the direction of a verdict for defendant.

The declaration alleges that the defendant corporation was engaged in the business of manufacturing and bottling soda and carbonated beverages and that it was its duty to exercise reasonable and proper care in the manufacture and bottling of said beverages so that they should not contain an excess of carbon dioxide or carbonic acid gas; that plaintiff purchased at one of defendant's stores in Providence a bottle of orangeade soda which he placed in the ice chest in his home; that the next day plaintiff took the bottle from the ice chest and while, in the exercise of due care, he was in the act of opening said bottle it exploded, and his hand was injured by the broken glass. The alleged negligence of defendant is that said bottle of soda was charged with an excess of carbon dioxide or carbonic acid gas.

The plaintiff testified that he purchased the soda in defendant's store, deposited it that day in his own Tee chest, and removed it therefrom the next day; that in removing the bottle he did nothing "to stir it up" and that he did not strike it against anything; that, as he was carrying it in his hand, holding it by its neck, there was a loud explosion, the bottle was blown into pieces, and as a result his hand was severely injured. He testified that for four or five years he had been engaged in the business of bottling soda, and that he was and is "acquainted with the nature of bottling soda water." Counsel for defendant then objected to a continuance of plaintiff's testimony on this general line of evidence. In answer to an inquiry by the court, counsel for plaintiff stated that he did not contend that the bottle was defective, but expected to prove that there was an excessive charge of gas in this particular bottle; that, if this bottle was defective, it would have broken in the charging machine, as often happens when a bottle is being charged with gas. The trial justice ruled that the evidence offered was inadmissible as the bottle might have been broken from many different causes; that plaintiff was required to prove by a chemical analysis of the contents of the bottle that there was an excess of gas therein. To this ruling plaintiff duly took exception.

Plaintiff then made the following formal offer of proof which was rejected and plaintiffs exception was noted: "The plaintiff offers to prove through his witnesses, if they were permitted to testify to that effect, that at the time of the bottling of sode water if the bottle into which the soda water is put is of itself defective and of an improper quality, the bottle would break at that time by reason of the pressure being exerted upon it; and that, if soda is bottled and while being...