Meadows v. Coca-Cola Bottling, Inc.
| Decision Date | 09 January 1981 |
| Docket Number | COCA-COLA |
| Citation | 392 So.2d 825 |
| Parties | Timothy MEADOWS, a minor suing by and through his father, Dan Meadows, Jr., as next friend v.BOTTLING, INC., a Corporation. Dan MEADOWS, Jr. v.BOTTLING, INC. 79-289, 79-289A. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
M. A. Marsal, J. F. Janecky and Kenneth O. Simon, Mobile, for appellants.
William E. Johnston and James C. Johnston, Mobile, for appellee.
The plaintiff appeals from a jury verdict in favor of the defendant, Coca-Cola. We affirm.
This case involves injuries to a minor child, Timothy Meadows, which were sustained when a 32-ounce returnable Coca-Cola bottle exploded in his face, severely injuring one eye. These injuries occurred when the 10-month-old child crawled into the kitchen of his home, opened the cabinet door where the unopened Coke was stored, and turned over the bottle. The bottle then exploded. Timothy's father, Dan Meadows, Jr., filed suit as next friend of Timothy and individually for the medical expenses incurred as well as for physical pain and mental anguish suffered. The plaintiff sought one million dollars damages, and alleged that Coca-Cola:
1) negligently failed to inspect the bottle;
2) negligently filled the bottle with an excessive amount of pressure;
3) negligently failed to warn consumers of this danger; and
4) breached the provisions of the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine.
Coca-Cola denied the allegations of the complaint and alleged that the bottle broke as result of an external blow to the bottle. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, Coca-Cola. A motion for new trial was denied, and the plaintiff appealed.
The plaintiff first contends that the trial judge erroneously ordered the jury to disregard the testimony of plaintiff's expert witness, Mr. Lehman, concerning defects in other 32-ounce Coca-Cola bottles. Mr. Lehman testified that he had examined between 200 and 500 Coca-Cola bottles, and that many of them had surface defects which decreased their strength. While it is true that circumstantial evidence of similar defects in other units of the product in litigation is competent to show that a product is defective, Norton Co. v. Harrelson, 278 Ala. 85, 176 So.2d 18 (1965), before a witness may give his opinion as an expert, the proper predicate for his testimony must be laid. Here, the plaintiff did not lay the proper predicate for Mr. Lehman's testimony as an expert. Mr. Lehman did not state where he got the 200-500 bottles, when he examined them, how he determined the existence of surface defects or how the defects weakened the bottles. Clearly no predicate was laid which would show this witness to have sufficient expertise and knowledge to testify as to his opinion. Moreover, it is in the sound discretion of the trial court to determine the competency of a witness. The trial court's decision will not be disturbed on appeal except for palpable abuse. Russell v. Relax-A-Cizor Sales, Inc., 274 Ala. 244, 147 So.2d 279 (1962). There was no such palpable abuse, thus, it was not error for the trial court to order that Mr. Lehman's testimony be disregarded.
The plaintiff also contends that the trial court erred in refusing to admit into evidence a report of the National Commission on Product Safety which Mr. Lehman testified was a learned treatise and a standard on the subject. In Alabama, a treatise which is testified to by an expert as being a standard on the subject is admissible. Baswell v. Wilks, 57 Ala.App. 98, 326 So.2d 292 (1976). Here, however, Mr. Lehman was not shown to be an expert qualified to introduce the treatise.
Similarly, the plaintiff urges that the report was a scientific report of a governmental agency, and thus an exception to the hearsay rule....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alabama Power Co. v. Marine Builders, Inc.
..."for a jury to consider in determining the standard of care that a defendant should have followed." See also Meadows v. Coca-Cola Bottling, Inc., 392 So.2d 825 (Ala.1981). We have been cited to no Alabama cases extending this principle to private proposals such as those admitted here, not g......
-
Southern Energy Homes, Inc. v. Washington
...demonstrative evidence to be taken into the jury room will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. See Meadows v. Coca-Cola Bottling, Inc., 392 So.2d 825, 828 (Ala. 1981). Under the facts of this case, we find no abuse of discretion in allowing a handwritten document that merely list......
-
Osborne Truck Lines, Inc. v. Langston
...on appeal except for palpable abuse." Burroughs Corp. v. Hall Affiliates, Inc., 423 So.2d 1348, 1353 (Ala.1982); Meadows v. Coca-Cola Bottling, Inc., 392 So.2d 825 (Ala.1981); Brown v. AAA Wood Products, Inc., 380 So.2d 784 (Ala.1980). Here, the defendants do not even object to the refusal ......
-
Drs. Lane, Bryant, Eubanks & Dulaney v. Otts
...of science which is testified to by an expert as being standard and trustworthy on the subject is admissible. Meadows v. Coca-Cola Bottling, Inc., Ala., 392 So.2d 825 (1981). However, "relevant extracts from medical treatises are not in themselves self-proving, but are admissible only when ......