De Lucia v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Conn., COCA-COLA

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
Citation89 A.2d 749,139 Conn. 65
Decision Date10 June 1952
Docket NumberCOCA-COLA
PartiesDE LUCIA v.BOTTLING CO. OF CONNECTICUT. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

William T. Holleran, New Haven, for appellant (defendant).

Albert W. Cretella, Jr., New Haven, with whom, on the brief, was Albert W. Cretella, New Haven, for appellee (plaintiff).

Before BROWN, C. J., and JENNINGS, BALDWIN, INGLIS and O'SULLIVAN, JJ.

O'SULLIVAN, Associate Justice.

The plaintiff became ill after drinking Coca-Cola. He sued the defendant corporation, which had packaged and sold the beverage. The complaint alleged two causes of action, one grounded in negligence, the other in breach of contract. The court decided for the defendant on the former and for the plaintiff on the latter. The defendant has appealed.

The court found that the defendant sold the plaintiff a bottle of Coca-Cola in its original package. While drinking out of the bottle, the plaintiff discovered that it contained a partially decayed grasshopper. He was immediately subjected to nausea and his stomach remained upset for several weeks. The defendant does not dispute the foregoing facts. It concedes that it impliedly warranted the fitness of the beverage for human consumption. It admits, for the limited purpose of this appeal, that the warranty was breached. The only contention advanced is that it was not notified of the breach. Its claim is that in the absence of such notice the plaintiff was not entitled to recover.

In addition to the facts recited above, the court found that the plaintiff notified the defendant of the presence of the dead insect in the bottle and of his ensuing sickness. This specific finding of notice has been attacked by the defendant on the ground that it has no support in the evidence. The plaintiff, in an attempt to justify the finding, relies upon several answers made by himself while under examination by his own counsel. Objection to the questions which elicited these answers had been seasonably raised by the defendant. The ground of objection was that the answers were inadmissible until it had first been established that he to whom notice was claimed to have been given was an agent of the defendant. The court, however, permitted the line of inquiry to be pursued, after reserving to the defendant the privilege of moving to strike should the plaintiff subsequently fail to prove agency. At the conclusion of the plaintiff's case, when it developed that such agency had not been established, the court, at the defendant's request, struck the answers. This left the transcript devoid of any evidence which either directly or inferentially related to the giving of notice. That the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Export Development Canada v. T. Keefe & Son, LLC, CV095032894S
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Connecticut
    • November 9, 2016
    .... . The buyer must plead and prove the giving of notice." (Citation omitted; emphasis added.) De Lucia v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co of Conn., 139 Conn. 65, 67, 89 A.2d 749 (1952). Section 42a-2-607(3)(a) provides that " [w]here a tender has been accepted . . . the buyer must within a reasonable......
  • W. Dermatology Consultants, P.C. v. Vitalworks, Inc.
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • October 1, 2013
    ...buyer's right to recover.... The buyer must plead and prove the giving of notice.” (Citation omitted.) DeLucia v. Coca–Cola Bottling Co., 139 Conn. 65, 67, 89 A.2d 749 (1952). “[C]omplaints as to the quality of goods furnished may be found to constitute a sufficient notice of a breach.... B......
  • Silverman v. Swift & Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • July 13, 1954
    ...of notice of a breach of warranty is a condition precedent to recovery on that ground. General Statutes, § 6664; DeLucia v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 139 Conn. 65, 67, 89 A.2d 749. It does not appear, however, that a claim of lack of notice was presented in the trial court, and we shall consi......
  • W. Dermatology Consultants, P.C. v. VitalWorks, Inc., AC 32051
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • October 1, 2013
    ...right to recover. . . . The buyer must plead and prove the giving of notice.'' (Citation omitted.) DeLucia v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 139 Conn. 65, 67, 89 A.2d 749 (1952). ''[C]omplaints as to the quality of goods furnished may be found to constitute a sufficient notice of a breach . . . . ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT