La Hue v. Coca-Cola Bottling, Inc.
| Decision Date | 01 August 1957 |
| Docket Number | COCA-COLA,No. 33917,33917 |
| Parties | Albert J. LA HUE and Keneva J. LaHue, his wife, Respondents, v.BOTTLING, Inc., a Washington corporation, Appellant. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
George H. Bovingdon, Seattle, for appellant.
Lundin, Barto & Goucher, Seattle, for respondents.
This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in an action for damages arising out of the breach of an implied warranty, tried to the court.
February 16, 1955, plaintiff husband purchased a sealed bottle of Coca-Cola from Andrew Rapuzzi, the owner of the Joy House Tavern in Seattle. He took the unopened bottle to his apartment and gave it to his wife. She opened it and, upon sipping it, discovered some foreign matter in the bottle. She immediately suffered nausea. Subsequently, the foreign matter was determined by a chemist to be protein material, presumably an animal tissue. Plaintiffs brought this action for damages against defendant, the manufacturer.
At the trial, after both parties had rested, the defendant moved for judgment of dismissal on the ground that plaintiffs had made no allegation or proof of notice to defendant, prior to suit, concerning the breach of warranty. The motion was denied.
The trial court found for plaintiffs on the issue of liability. It also found that there had been no notice of a breach of warranty given by plaintiffs to defendant, except the service of the complaint. It concluded, however:
'That the commencement of suit is to be construed as the communication of notice of breach of warranty in compliance with the Sales Act.'
Judgment was entered for the plaintiffs in the sum of $300, and this appeal follows.
All of appellant's assignments of error arise from one basic premise: that this action, being one based on a breach of warranty, RCW 63.04.500 applies, requiring the buyer to give notice to the seller of the breach of warranty. Therefore it contends that the giving of such notice is a condition precedent to recovery of damages.
It must be borne in mind that there is no privity of contract between the parties to this action. This is not an action by a buyer against a seller. It is an action by a consumer against the manufacturer of a bottled beverage for breach of implied warranty of the wholesomeness of its product, which product was purchased by the consumer from a retailer. RCW 63.04.500 does not apply.
The liability of a manufacturer in a case such as this forms an exception to the general rule of nonliability of a manufacturer to a remote vendee, and arises upon principles of tort. The implied warranty of the wholesomeness of food or beverages in original packages placed on sale, whenever it exists at all, arises as an implication of the common law. The liability does not rest so much upon an implied contract as upon a violation of a duty to members of the general public to prevent them from suffering...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc.
...Ryan v. Progressive Grocery Stores, Inc., supra; Jacob E. Decker & Sons, Inc. v. Capps, supra; La Hue v. Coca--Cola Bottling, 50 Wash.2d 645, 314 P.2d 421 (Sup.Ct.1957). In fact, the rule as to such products has been characterized as an exception to the general doctrine. But more recently c......
-
Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc.
...to a consumer founded upon the former's express representations to the latter respecting his produce. (La Hue v. Coca-Cola Bottling, 50 Wash.2d 645, 314 P.2d 421, 422; cf. Chapman v. Brown, D.C., 198 F.Supp. 78, 85.) 268 P.2d 1041; Collum v. Pope & Talbot, Inc., 135 Cal.App.2d 653, 656, 288......
-
McCormack v. Hankscraft Co.
...88, 53 N.W. 811.11 See, Vitro Corp. of America v. Texas Vitrified Supply Co., 71 N.Mex. 95, 376 P.2d 41.12 See, LaHue v. Coca-Cola Bottling, Inc., 50 Wash.2d 645, 314 P.2d 421; Piercefield v. Remington Arms Co., 375 Mich. 85, 133 N.W.2d 129; Wights v. Staff Jennings, Inc., 241 Or. 301, 405 ......
-
Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc.
...one for the court to adopt in actions by injured consumers against manufacturers with whom they have not dealt. (La Hue v. Coca-Cola Bottling, 50 Wash.2d 645, 314 P.2d 421, 422; Chapman v. Brown, D.C., 198 F.Supp. 78, 85, affd. Brown v. Chapman, 9 Cir., 304 F.2d 149.) 'As between the immedi......
-
A Seller's Responsibilities to Remote Purchasers for Breach of Warranty in the Sales of Goods Under Washington Law
...(1965); Esborg v. Bailey Drug Co., 61 Wash. 2d 351, 378 P.2d 298, 301 (1963); La Hue v. Coca-Cola Bottling, Inc., 50 Wash. 2d 645, 647-48, 314 P.2d 421, 422 (1957); Nelson v. West Coast Dairy Co., 5 Wash. 2d 284, 290, 105 P.2d 76, 79 (1940); Mazetti v. Armour and Co., 75 Wash. 622, 624, 135......