Rafferty v. Hull Brewing Co.
| Decision Date | 07 March 1966 |
| Citation | 350 Mass. 359,215 N.E.2d 85 |
| Parties | Joseph RAFFERTY v. The HULL BREWING COMPANY (and a companion case 1 ). |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
James D. Casey, Boston, for The Hull Brewing Co.
Joseph J. Walsh, Boston, for The Handy Beer and Wine Co.
Joseph J. Hurley, Boston, for plaintiff.
Before WILKINS, C.J., and SPALDING, WHITTEMORE, KIRK, and SPIEGEL, JJ. SPALDING, Justice.
The plaintiff was working as a clerk in a small variety store in Roxbury on March 30, 1957, when a bottle of Old India ale which he was handling exploded, causing injury to his left eye. As a result of that injury, these actions in tort were brought against The Hull Brewing Company (Hull), bottler of the ale, and against The Handy Beer and Wine Company (Handy), distributor of the ale to the plaintiff's employer. In each of the declarations, the plaintiff alleged negligence in failure to inspect the bottles for defects, and general negligence. The cases were tried together and a jury returned verdicts for the plaintiff against both defendants. The defendants excepted to the denial of their motions for directed verdicts, to various rulings on evidence, and to portions of the charge.
We summarize the pertinent evidence as follows: The plaintiff worked part time during 1957 for the E & F Food Store, Inc., usually two evenings on weekends. The store was operated by Frank Fialcow and his wife, and sold beer and wine in addition to numerous other items. On the weekend of the accident, the plaintiff worked from 7 to 10:30 P.M., on Friday, and came to work the next night, March 30, at 6:30 P.M. 'He noticed that the Old India pale ale in the beer refrigerator had to be replaced.' About fourteen bottles of Old India were usually kept in the refrigerator. The rest were stored in the heavy fiber boxes in which they had been delivered, and which were stacked 'in a corner under shelves * * * located on the Delle Avenue side of the store.' These boxes were in close proximity to the refrigerator. The plaintiff took two bottles out of a case, placed one in the refrigerator, '(a)nd * * * passed the bottle in * * * (his) right hand to * * * (his) left hand and there was an explosion.' He did not, in transferring the bottle, strike it against any object.
There was evidence to support the inference that the bottle which exploded was taken from one of the ten cases delivered to the store by Handy on March 26, 1957. Both Fialcow and his wife were present when this delivery was made, and Mrs. Fialcow testified that she watched Handy's employees bring the ten cases into the store and stack them 'under the shelves on the Delle Avenue wall.' Customers were not permitted in the area where the cases of Old India were stored, and there was testimony that none of the bottles was struck from the time they were placed under the shelves by Handy's employees until the time of the accident, and that with the exception of those which were transferred from the cases to the refrigerator, none was moved. The plaintiff testified that while 'it was not unusual for * * * (one) to kick a case of beer under the shelves with * * * (one's) toe,' in reaching for customer items placed high on the shelves, he did not believe he had done so while working the night before the accident.
Answers to interrogatories propounded to the defendants were introduced in evidence. The defendant Handy stated that due care was used in handling the bottles; the defendant Hull stated that the bottles were duly inspected. Each statement rightly was limited to the defendant which made it. Bean v. Security Fur Storage Warehouse, Inc., 344 Mass. 674, 675, 184 N.E.2d 64.
Inasmuch as there was no evidence of the specific cause of the bottle's explosion, the cases were properly submitted to the jury only if an inference was permissible from the explosion itself that it would not have happened unless in some respect each defendant was negligent. Roscigno v. Colonial Beacon Oil Co., 294 Mass. 234, 235, 200 N.E. 883. This principle is often referred to as the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. See Evangelio v. Metropolitan Bottling Co., Inc., 339 Mass. 177, 181--182, 158 N.E.2d 342.
The case against Handy raises the question whether this principle, however denominated, it applicable against a party which exercised control over the bottle only during some period after the bottling process had been completed. We are of opinion that the doctrine cannot be so applied. The inference of negligence which is permissible in cases where a bottle...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coyne v. John S. Tilley Co., Inc.
...handlers.' Evangelio v. Metropolitan Bottling Co. Inc., 339 Mass. 117, 183, 158 N.E.2d 342, 347 (1959). Rafferty v. Hull Brewing Co., 350 Mass. 359, 363, 215 N.E.2d 85 (1966). The evidence introduced must be of such a nature that it warrants a reasonable inference that the particular defend......
-
Coyne v. John S. Tilley Co., Inc.
...recover in either action, therefore, he must depend upon the doctrine formerly denominated res ipsa loquitur. Rafferty v. Hull Brewing Co., 350 Mass. 359, 362, 215 N.E.2d 85 (1966). Gelinas v. New England Power Co., 359 Mass. 119, 123, 268 N.E.2d 336 (1971). This doctrine 'permits the tribu......
-
Carlson v. American Safety Equipment Corp.
...546 (1975), quoting Evangelio v. Metropolitan Bottling Co., supra, 339 Mass. at 183, 158 N.E.2d 342. See Rafferty v. Hull Brewing Co., 350 Mass. 359, 363, 215 N.E.2d 85, 87 (1966). Plaintiff has here failed to meet that burden. While there is some evidence as to Honda of Boston's handling o......
-
Enrich v. Windmere Corp.
...plaintiff are sufficiently eliminated by the evidence. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 328D(1)(a) (1965); Rafferty v. Hull Brewing Co., 350 Mass. 359, 362, 215 N.E.2d 85 (1966); Ginsberg v. Metropolitan Transit Auth., 333 Mass. 514, 516, 131 N.E.2d 919 (1956); 1A Frumer & Friedman, Prod......