Lundquist v. Coca Cola Bottling, 32259
Decision Date | 05 March 1953 |
Docket Number | No. 32259,32259 |
Citation | 254 P.2d 488,42 Wn.2d 170 |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Parties | LUNDQUIST, v. COCA COLA BOTTLING, Inc. |
George H. Bovingdon, Seattle, for appellant.
Robbins & Robbins, Seattle, for respondent.
Plaintiff is a bus driver for the Seattle Transit Company. On June 2, 1951, he was twenty-five years of age, and in good health. He slept well, had a good appetite, and was never troubled with nausea.
On the day in question, plaintiff reported for work at the Seattle bus terminal, and went into the room provided for bus drivers, which contained a ping-pong table, a pool table, and a Coca Cola vending machine owned and operated by defendant. He inserted a coin in the vending machine and obtained a bottle of Coca Cola. He testified:
'I opened it [the bottle of Coca Cola] and took a swallow. I walked back to the table where all the fellows were sitting around talking.
'I noticed a peculiar taste. I couldn't place the taste. I took another awallow, and I knew there was something wrong. I didn't know what it was.
'So Mr. Pickett, he was sitting there on the other end of the table. I said to him, 'If you don't mind drinking out of my bottle, would you take a drink?' I realized something was wrong with it, I think.
'He took a swallow of it, and made an awful face. He says, 'What is it?' I said, 'I don't know.'
'Upon holding the bottle up and looking through the bottom, you could see a body and legs there.
Defendant does not now dispute that the foreign matter in the bottle was a decayed mouse. Notwithstanding his nausea, plaintiff went to work though he had to stop his bus, during its regular run, and vomit. His nausea continued throughout the day. Thereafter, he could not sleep as soundly as before. His appetite was lessened, and his nerves were on edge so that, for example, the crying of his baby irritated him. By the time of trial he had lost ten or thirteen pounds in weight. There is medical testimony, in the record, that these effects of his experience may last from five to seven years.
The plaintiff did not lose any wages or incur any medical expenses. His capacity for work was not adversely affected. The verdict of the jury, in the amount of $1500, rests upon the subjective symptoms of pain and suffering only.
The trial court, invoking the provisions of RCW 4.76.030, cf. Rem.Rev.Stat. § 399-1, ordered a new trial if the plaintiff refused to accept a reduction of the judgment to $1,000. The plaintiff accepted the reduction. The defendant appealed.
Appellant, in its assignment of error No. 1, contends that the trial court erred in refusing to give its requested instructions Nos. 3, 4, and 5, which would have required a verdict in its favor, unless the jury found that the foreign matter in the Coca Cola bottle was there through (1) the negligence of appellant, (2) its failure to exercise reasonable care in the preparation of it, or (3) if the damage complained of was the result of an accident for which no one was to blame.
Upon this assignment, appellant contends that the trial court misapprehended the rule of Ringstad v. I. Magnin & Co., 39 Wash.2d 923, 239 P.2d 848, in its ruling that plaintiff had no burden of proving negligence on the part of the defendant.
We think, on the contrary, that the trial court followed the rule of that case, which is that a cause of action for breach of warranty, under the provisions of the uniform sales act, RCW 63.04.160(1), (2), cf. Rem.Rev.Stat. § 5836-15, does not require an allegation or proof of negligence. Flessher v. Carstens Packing Co., 93 Wash. 48, 160 P. 14; Nelson v. West Coast Dairy Co., 5 Wash.2d 284, 105 P.2d 76, 130 A.L.R. 606; and Jacob E. Decker & Sons, Inc. v. Capps, 139 Tex. 609, 164 S.W.2d 828, 142 A.L.R. 1479.
Appellant's third assignment of error is directed to the trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Riblet v. Ideal Cement Co.
...Finn v. City of Bremerton, 118 Wash. 381, 203 P. 971; Vizzaro v. King County, 130 Wash. 398, 227 P. 497; Lundquist v. Coca Cola Bottling, 42 Wash.2d 170, 254 P.2d 488. Allowing the view in this case may have been inadvisable, but it was not an abuse of discretion, and no prejudice to appell......
-
Catania v. Brown, CV
...warranty of fitness is not founded on negligence; Ireland v. Louis K. Liggett Co., 243 Mass. 243, 137 N.E. 371; Lundquist v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., 42 Wash.2d 170, 254 P.2d 488; nor is it founded on fraud or lack of good faith. Aegis Productions, Inc. v. Arriflex Corporation, 25 A.D.2d 639......
-
Pulley v. Pacific Coca-Cola Bottling Co.
...77 S.E.2d 293 (1953).2 Wilson v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. of New York, 3 N.J.Super. 102, 65 A.2d 630 (1949).3 Lundquist v. Coca Cola Bottling, Inc., 42 Wash.2d 170, 254 P.2d 488 (1953).4 Jordan v. Coca Cola Bottling Company of Utah, 117 Utah 578, 218 P.2d 660, 52 A.L.R.2d 108 (1950).5 Oklahom......
-
Sweeny v. Sweeny, 33390
...reduced to the sum of $500.00, but being further of the opinion that the holding of the court in the case of Lundquist v. Coca-Cola Bottling, Inc. [42 Wash.2d 170, 254 P.2d 488] prevents such reduction in damages which this court otherwise would hold were so excessive as to be unmistakably ......