Nigro v. Coca-Cola Bottling, Inc., COCA-COLA
| Decision Date | 03 January 1957 |
| Docket Number | COCA-COLA,No. 33723,33723 |
| Citation | 49 Wn.2d 625,305 P.2d 426 |
| Parties | Albert J. NIGRO, Respondent, v.BOTTLING, Inc., a Washington corporation, Appellant. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Horace G. Geer, Tacoma, for appellant.
No appearance for respondent.
Only one question is presented, and that is whether the plaintiff established a cause of action.
The plaintiff proved that a bottle of Coca Cola taken from a vending machine at the United States Naval Station located at Tacoma, Washington, contained foreign matter which caused him to regurgitate and made him ill for a short period of time. He offered no evidence that the bottle of Coca Cola was supplied by the defendant, Coca-Cola Bottling, Inc., a Washington corporation, or that the defendant had any connection whatsoever with the vending machine.
At the conclusion of the plaintiff's case, the defendant moved for a nonsuit. The motion was denied, and the defendant stood on its motion and presented no testimony. From a judgment for $500 in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant has appealed.
The trial court made a finding 'That the coca-cola was supplied and was warranted to be wholesome by the Coca-Cola Bottling, Inc., a Washington corporation.'
We will assume arguendo that, by the fact of its being bottled goods offered for sale, there was an implied warranty that the Coca Cola was wholesome. See Lundquist v. Coca Cola Bottling, Inc., 1953, 42 Wash.2d 170, 254 P.2d 488. There was, however, absolutely no evidence to support the finding that the defendant 'supplied' the Coca Cola.
The plaintiff having failed to establish one of the essential elements of his case, the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion for a nonsuit. The judgment is reversed, with instructions to grant the motion and to enter an order of dismissal.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McNair v. Johnson & Johnson
...(1973) citing, in part, Thompson-Hayward Chemical Co. v. Childress , 277 Ala. 285, 169 So.2d 305 (1964) ; Nigro v. Coca-Cola Bottling, Inc. , 49 Wash.2d 625, 305 P.2d 426 (1957) ; Undeck v. Consumer's Discount Supermarket, Inc. , 29 Md.App. 444, 349 A.2d 635 (Md. 1975) ; see also Jeffers v.......
-
Baughman v. General Motors Corp., Civ. A. No. 3:84-1520-15.
...upon which plaintiff relies. See, e.g., Paul v. Hardware Mutual Ins. Co., 254 So.2d 690 (La.Ct.App.1971); Nigro v. Coca-Cola Bottling, Inc., 49 Wash.2d 625, 305 P.2d 426 (1957). Ryan v. Eli Lilly & Co., 514 F.Supp. 1004, 1006-07 (D.S.C.1981). The plaintiff herein is unable to prove that G.M......
-
Ryan v. Eli Lilly & Co.
...upon which plaintiff relies. See, e. g., Paul v. Hardware Mutual Ins. Co., 254 So.2d 690 (La.Ct. App.1971); Nigro v. Coca-Cola Bottling, Inc., 49 Wash.2d 625, 305 P.2d 426 (1957). The plaintiff cannot show who manufactured the DES ingested by her mother, but contends it was one of two defen......
-
Welch v. Coca-Cola Bottlers' Ass'n, COCA-COLA
...Bottling Co., Ohio App., 188 N.E.2d 817; Elledge v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., 252 N.C. 337, 113 S.E.2d 435; Nigro v. Coca-Cola Bottling, Inc., 49 Wash.2d 625, 305 P.2d 426. Appellant had the burden of presenting evidence that appellee was the bottler of the drink which caused his injury. To ......