Lawton Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Shaughnessy
| Decision Date | 28 June 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. 33355,COCA-COLA,33355 |
| Citation | 216 P.2d 579,202 Okla. 610 |
| Parties | LAWTONBOTTLING CO. v. SHAUGHNESSY. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Res ipsa loquitur is a rule of evidence whereby negligence of the alleged wrongdoer may be inferred from the mere fact that the accident happened, provided the character of the accident and the circumstances attending it lead reasonably to the belief that, in the absence of negligence, it would not have occurred, and the thing which caused the injury is shown to have been under the management and control of the alleged wrongdoer.
2. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable in cases based on the alleged negligence of a manufacturer of carbonated beverages toward one injured by the explosion of a bottle, if the plaintiff can show that the bottle was handled with ordinary care by all persons touching it after it left the manufacturer's hands and that its condition had undergone no change.
3. When a defendant produces evidence to rebut inference of negligence which arises upon application of doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, it is ordinarily a question of fact for trier of facts to determine whether the inference has been dispelled.
4. Where a jury is waived in a cause triable to a jury and tried to the court, a judgment based on conflicting evidence which reasonably tends to support the judgment will not be disturbed on appeal.
Robert B. Harbison, Altus, for plaintiff in error.
Robinson & Oden, Altus, for defendant in error.
On July 11, 1942, the plaintiff was operating a cafe in the City of Altus, Oklahoma, and she had an ice box in the cafe in which she kept cold drinks for sale; and on this day she ordered some Coca-Cola from the defendant, and the defendant, through its duly authorized agent, delivered the same to plaintiff's place of business, and this agent of the defendant placed the Coca-Cola in the ice box. The Coca-Cola was in capped bottles, and was the only beverage in the ice box at that particular time. Within fifteen minutes after the Coca-Cola bottles had been placed in the ice box by the agent of defendant, plaintiff went to the box and pushed back the lid to take out a bottle of Coca-Cola for a customer, and just as she reached in to pick up the bottle, a bottle exploded and a piece of glass struck plaintiff on her right cheek, necessitating her being taken to a physician, who dressed the wound. She was under the doctor's care for approximately three weeks. The injury left a small scar on her face. The plaintiff testified that she suffered from neuritis in her face, and that she lost 3 1/2 weeks from her work, and that her doctor bill was $51 and that she was forced to pay $105 for extra help; that she was out a total of $201.50.
The case was tried without a jury, and the trial court entered a judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $750.
The plaintiff's evidence revealed nothing that would show carelessness or negligence on the part of the defendant, except that the bottle exploded and she was injured as a result thereof; so unless the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies in this case, the demurrer of the defendant to the evidence should have been sustained, and the sole question to be determined in this case is whether or not the rule of res ipsa loquitur applies.
The defendant in this case relies upon the case of Soter v. Griesedieck Western Brewery Co., Okl., 193 P.2d 575, 4 A.L.R.2d 458. In that case the plaintiff was injured by the explosion of a bottle of Stag Beer brewed by Griesedieck. Plaintiff owned and operated a sandwich shop in Oklahoma City where he sold Stag Beer. This particular order had been delivered to his place of business some three days prior to the injury, by Collins-Dietz-Morris, Distributors. The plaintiff in that action was pulling the beer bottles from the case, two bottles in each hand, and was placing them in the cooler. After he had placed several bottles in the cooler, and while still so engaged, one of the bottles exploded in his right hand, and he was injured as a result thereof. In that case, as in this, there was a trial to the court without a jury, and the trial court there entered a judgment for the defendant; but in that case the plaintiff failed to prove that the bottles had not been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Evangelio v. Metropolitan Bottling Co.
...Bottling Co., Inc., 26 N.J. 263, 139 A.2d 404; Fick v. Pilsener Brewing Co., Ohio Com.Pl., 86 N.E.2d 616; Lawton Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Shaughnessy, 202 Okl. 610, 216 P.2d 579; Loch v. Confair, 372 Pa. 212, 93 A.2d 451; Coca Cola Bottling Works, Inc. v. Crow, 200 Tenn. 161, 291 S.W.2d 58......
-
Johnson v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co.
...235 Minn. 471, 51 N.W.2d 573; Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Fort Smith v. Hicks, 215 Ark. 803, 223 S.W.2d 762; Lawton Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Shaughnessy, 202 Okl. 610, 216 P.2d 579; Ferrell v. Royal Crown Bottling Co., W.Va., 109 S.E.2d 489; Meyers v. Alexandria Coca-Cola Bottling Co., La.Ap......
-
St. John's Hospital & School of Nursing, Inc. v. Chapman
...reference in both the National Union Fire Insurance Company case and in the Furr case. In the syllabus to Lawton Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Shaughnessy, 202 Okl. 610, 216 P.2d 579, this court held: 'Res ipsa loquitur is a rule of evidence whereby negligence of the alleged wrongdoer may be in......
-
Mohawk Drilling Company v. McCullough Tool Company
...Amatucci, 206 Okl. 366, 243 P.2d 716, 718. 5 Oklahoma Natural Gas Co. v. Colvert, Okl., 260 P.2d 1076, 1080; Lawton Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Shaughnessy, 202 Okl. 610, 216 P.2d 579; Independent Eastern Torpedo Co. v. Gage, 206 Okl. 108, 240 P.2d 6 See also: Billington Lumber Co. v. Cheatha......