Stolle v. Anheuser-Busch Incorporated
Decision Date | 09 April 1925 |
Docket Number | 24652 |
Parties | HENRY J. STOLLE, Appellant, v. ANHEUSER-BUSCH INCORPORATED |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court; Hon. Frank Landwehr, Judge.
Reversed and remanded.
Hall & Dame and J. B. Garber for appellant.
(1) The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies to the facts set out in the petition. Riecke v. Anheuser-Busch Brewing Assn., 206 Mo.App. 246, 227 S.W. 631; Payne v. Rome Coca Cola Bottling Co., 10 Ga.App. 762. (2) The principle underlying the application of the rule of res ipsa loquitur governs and is made applicable by the facts, including the surrounding circumstances set out in the petition. Thompson v. Ry. Co, 243 Mo. 336, 353, 23 A. L. R. 484, 8 A. L. R. 502. (3) The explosion of the bottle of "Budweiser" gives rise to an inference of negligence, and the allegations of the petition eliminating negligence of others brings this inference back to the manufacturer, defendant. Payne v. Coca Cola Co., 12 Ga.App 762, 8 A. L. R. 502.
Nagel & Kirby and Everett Paul Griffin for respondent.
(1) A petition stating only conclusions as to vital matters without the facts on which based, is subject to general demurrer. Mallinckrodt Chemical Works v. Nemnich, 169 Mo. 388; Roberts v. Anderson, 254 S.W. 723; 29 Cyc. Law & Procedure, pp. 566, 567, 570. (2) A demurrer admits the correctness only of facts well pleaded. Custer v. Kroeger, 243 S.W. 770; State ex rel. Rabiste v Southee, 254 S.W. 166. (3) There was no privity between the parties. Heizer v. Mfg. Co., 110 Mo. 605. (4) The petition does not state a cause of action because it does not plead either general or specific negligence. (5) The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur has no application to the facts in the case at bar. Russell v. Ry. Co., 245 S.W. 590; Wheeler v. Laurel Bottling Works, 111 Miss. 442; Glaser v. Seitz, 71 N.Y.S. 942; Stone v. Van Noy News Co., 153 Ky. 240; Bates v. Batey & Co., 3 K. B. (Eng.) 351; Guinea v. Campbell, 22 Quebec S. C. 257, 4 A. L. R. 1094, 8 A. L. R. 502, 13 A. L. R. 1176, 23 A. L. R. 484.
This is an action by plaintiff for loss of the services of his wife and medical and other expenses incurred as a result of personal injuries to her caused by the explosion of a bottle of "Budweiser," manufactured and bottled by the defendant, to his damage in the sum of $ 10,000. The court sustained a demurrer to the petition. Plaintiff declining to plead further, judgment was rendered for the defendant and plaintiff appealed.
Appellant contends that the petition stated a cause of action and that the court erred in sustaining the demurrer. The petition is, in part, as follows:
The petition then pleads the injuries inflicted and special damages sustained by plaintiff.
The respondent's contentions in support of the action of the court in sustaining the demurrer, are, so far as need be noted: (1) the petition states conclusions as to vital matters without stating the facts on which the conclusions are based, and is demurrable; (2) there was no privity of contract between the parties, and (3) the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur has no application to the facts in the case at bar.
I. The petition alleges that the bottle would not have exploded if due care had been used by the defendant; that all the facts and circumstances concerning the manufacture of the beverage and bottle were exclusively within the knowledge of the defendant and not within the knowledge of plaintiff. "Less particularity is required when the facts lie more in the knowledge of the opposite party." [Bliss on Code Pleading, (3 Ed.) secs. 310 and 310a, where pertinent illustrations are given.] The petition charges general negligence and, in the circumstances admitted by the demurrer, is sufficient.
II. The defendant's responsibility rests not on contract but in tort, "and therefore the contention as to want of contractual relation is wholly irrelevant." [Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Deselms, 212 U.S. 159, 178; Wellington v. Oil Co., 104 Mass. 64; Weiser v. Holzman, 33 Wash. 87, and cases cited.]
III. Much diversity of opinion exists as to whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies to a case of this character. Among the cases cited by respondent are the following:
Russell v. Railway Co. (Springfield Court of Appeals), 245 S.W. 590. In that case plaintiff was employed by the defendant to go in the fire box of an engine to make repairs. The defendant installed an electric light in the fire box to enable plaintiff to see. The bulb exploded and some parts were driven into plaintiff's eye. On page 591, Cox, J., said: "There is no allegation that defendant manufactured and supplied its own light bulbs and the electricity to produce the light or that an explosion would not occur without some negligence in the use of the bulb and electricity or in the faulty construction of the bulb." The case is an authority against respondent's contention.
In Guinea v. Campbell, 22 Quebec Superior Court, 257, a bottle of cream soda manufactured and sold by defendant burst, inflicting injuries on plaintiff's child. The defendant made a showing which, in the opinion of the judge, exonerated him. The headnote concludes: "The extent of obligation of persons selling gaseous waters as to the receptacles which contain them is to take every reasonable precaution that such receptacles shall be sufficient for the purpose." This case lends no support to defendant's contention.
In Stone v. Van Noy Railroad News Co., 153 Ky. 240, it was held that the bursting of a pop bottle afforded no presumption that it was defective or overcharged. Other cases relied on by respondent are found in the annotations to Chiles v. Ft. Smith Comm. Co., 216 S.W. 11, 8 A. L. R. 493. On page 502, the learned editor says:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Copher v. Barbee, s. 8104
...... authority of Maybach, supra, instant plaintiff boldly argues that the earlier case of Stolle v. Anheuser-Busch, 307 Mo. 520, 271 S.W. 497, 39 A.L.R. 1001 (in which plaintiff was permitted to ......
-
Maybach v. Falstaff Brewing Corp.
...v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., (Mo. App.) 215 S.W.2d 50, the court and the parties assumed that the case, under facts similar to those in the Stolle case, came the res ipsa doctrine. We think the result reached in sustaining the petition in the Stolle case is correct, because the petition state......
-
Carroll v. May Department Stores Co.
......902, 59 S.W.2d 654;. Coca Cola Bottling Co. v. Munn (4th Cir.), 99 F.2d. 190; Stolle v. Anheuser-Busch (1925), 307 Mo. 520,. 271 S.W. 497, 39 A. L. R. 1001; Hart v. Emery, Bird,. ......
-
Charlton v. Lovelace
...... Co., 102 S.W. 608, 125 Mo.App. 81; Dowell v. Guthrie, 12 S.W. 900, 99 Mo. 953; Stolle v. Anheuser-Busch, 271 S.W. 497, 307 Mo. 520; Gordon v. Muehler Packing Co., 40 S.W.2d 693, ......