Elledge v. Pepsi Cola Bottling Co. of Winston-Salem, WINSTON-SALE
| Decision Date | 06 April 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 394,WINSTON-SALE,NORTH,RTH,394 |
| Parties | Carrie S. ELLEDGE v. PEPSI COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OFCAROLINA. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Buford T. Henderson, Winston-Salem, for plaintiff, appellant.
Deal, Hutchins & Minor, by John M. Minor, Winston-Salem, for defendant, appellee.
The plaintiff has brought the action against Pepsi Cola Bottling Company of Winston-Salem, North Carolina. The evidence shows the plaintiff bought the drink from Smitherman and Myers. Mr. Myers testified he bought all the Suncrest he ever had from the Pepsi Cola Bottling Company. It was delivered off a truck.
Assuming the evidence is sufficient to warrant the inference the purchase was made from some Pepsi Cola Company, that, certainly, is as far as the evidence goes. The evidence should permit the inference the drink was bottled and sold by the Pepsi Cola Bottling Company of Winston-Salem, North Carolina. This it does not do.
Evidence of only one other instance of deleterious substance in Suncrest was offered. The plaintiff's husband discovered a small stick about one and one-half inches long that had the appearance of having been chewed. This drink also came from Smitherman and Myers.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baughman v. General Motors Corp., Civ. A. No. 3:84-1520-15.
...both North and South Carolina. Gantt v. Columbia Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 193 S.C. 51, 7 S.E.2d 641 (1940); Elledge v. Pepsi Cola Bottling Co., 252 N.C. 337, 113 S.E.2d 435 (1960).... Proof connecting the defendant with the instrumentality of the alleged defect is necessary regardless of the......
-
Ryan v. Eli Lilly & Co.
...both North and South Carolina. Gantt v. Columbia Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 193 S.C. 51, 7 S.E.2d 641 (1940); Elledge v. Pepsi Cola Bottling Co., 252 N.C. 337, 113 S.E.2d 435 (1960). It goes without saying that if a drug manufacturer ... is to be held liable for harm caused by a product, it is......
-
Perdue v. Wyeth Pharm., Inc.
...may not be held liable for injuries allegedly caused by the use of another's product. See, e.g., Elledge v. Pepsi Cola Bottling Co. of Winston – Salem , 252 N.C. 337, 338, 113 S.E.2d 435 (1960) ; Kientz v. Carlton , 245 N.C. 236, 240, 96 S.E.2d 14, 17 (1957) ("[T]he duty owed by each defend......
-
Mizell v. Eli Lilly & Co.
...burden of establishing that his injuries were the proximate result of defendant's negligence. See also, Elledge v. Pepsi Cola Bottling Company, 252 N.C. 337, 113 S.E.2d 435 (1960). The Supreme Court of South Carolina has not carved out any exceptions to this traditional rule. The Court plac......