Hampton v. Thomasville Coca-Cola Bottling Co.
| Citation | 180 S.E. 584,208 N.C. 331 |
| Decision Date | 26 June 1935 |
| Docket Number | 676. |
| Parties | HAMPTON v. THOMASVILLE COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Davidson County; Alley, Judge.
Action by Lula Hampton against the Thomasville Coca-Cola Bottling Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
One who prepares in bottles or packages foods, medicines, drugs, or beverages, and puts them on market, is charged with duty of exercising due care in preparation thereof, and under certain circumstances may be liable in damages to ultimate consumer.
In consumer's action against soft drink bottler for injuries caused by paint in bottle, evidence that witness had seen other bottles which appeared to contain white paint splashed on inside of bottle, when considered in connection with other testimony, held to take case to jury.
This is an action by the ultimate consumer to recover of the bottler damages from drinking bottled beverage containing deleterious substance.
The issues submitted and the answers made thereto were as follows:
From judgment based upon the verdict, the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning errors.
Don A Walser, of Lexington, for appellant.
D. L Pickard and P. V. Critcher, both of Lexington, for appellee.
The exceptive assignments of error urged upon appeal assail the action of the court in refusing to grant the defendant's motion for judgment as of nonsuit made upon the plaintiff's resting her evidence and renewed at the close of all the evidence. C. S. § 567.
There was evidence tending to show that on the 30th of September 1933, the plaintiff bought from Deaton's Store Coca-Cola which had been bottled and sold for the retail trade by the defendant, the Thomasville Coca-Cola Bottling Company; that upon drinking a small portion thereof the plaintiff became nauseated and sick; and that upon examination it was found that the bottle containing the Coca-Cola bought and drank by the plaintiff had in it a foreign substance that had not mixed with the Coca-Cola, and that looked and smelt like paint or varnish, and that this substance was thick upon the bottom of the bottle, and on one side of the bottle inside there was a lump about the size of the end of the thumb.
The decisions of this court are 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial