Styers v. Winston Coca-Cola Bottling Co., COCA-COLA

• Decision Date: 24 February 1954
• Docket Number: No. 740,COCA-COLA,740
• Citation: 80 S.E.2d 253,239 N.C. 504
• Parties: STYERS, v. WINSTONBOTTLING CO.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

Page 253

80 S.E.2d 253

239 N.C. 504

STYERS, v. WINSTON COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO.

No. 740

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Feb. 24, 1954

Deal, Hutchins & Minor, Womble, Carlyle, Martin & Sandridge, Winston-Salem, for plaintiff, appellee.

Craige & Craige, Winston-Salem, and Roger B. Hendrix, Winston-Salem, for defendant, appellant.

PARKER, Justice.

The defendant's first assignment of error is to the denial of its motion for judgment of nonsuit. The plaintiff's action is based on allegations of negligence, and this assignment of error presents the question whether sufficient evidence of actionable negligence on the part of the defendant was offered to carry the case to the jury.

It is well settled law in North Carolina that proof of injury caused by the explosion of a bottle containing a carbonated beverage, standing alone, is not sufficient to carry the case to the jury on the ground of actionable negligence. The principle of res ipsa loquitur is not applicable. Davis v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 228 N.C. 32, 44 S.E.2d 337; Enloe v. Charlotte Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 208 N.C. 305, 180 S.E. 582; Cashwell v. Fayetteville Pepsi-Cola Bottling Works, 174 N.C. 324, 93 S.E. 901.

The installation by the bottler of modern machinery and appliances, such as is in general and approved use, does not ipso facto exculpate the defendant from liability. Enloe v. Charlotte Coca-Cola Bottling Co., supra; Grant v. Graham Chero-Cola Bottling Co., 176 N.C. 256, 97 S.E. 27, 4 A.L.R. 1090.

Direct evidence of actionable negligence on defendant's part is not requisite; such negligence may be inferred from relevant facts and circumstances. Enloe v. Charlotte Coca-Cola Bottling Co., supra; Broadway v. Grimes, 204 N.C. 623, 169 S.E. 194; Dail v. Taylor, 151 N.C. 284, 66 S.E. 135, 28 L.R.A., N.S., 949.

In cases where damages are sought for injuries caused by such explosion, when the plaintiff has offered evidence tending to show that like products filled by the same bottler under substantially similar conditions, and sold by the bottler at about the same time have exploded, there is sufficient evidence to carry the case to the jury, as such facts and circumstances permit the inference that the bottler had not exercised that degree of care required of him under the circumstances. Such similar instances are allowed to be shown as evidence of a probable like occurrence at the time of plaintiff's injury when, and only when, accompanied by proof of substantially similar circumstances and reasonable proximity in time. Davis v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., supra; Ashkenazi v. Nehi Bottling Co., 217 N.C. 552, 8 S.E.2d 818; Enloe v. Charlotte Coca-Cola Bottling Co., supra; Broadway v. Grimes, supra; Perry v. Kelford Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 196 N.C. 175, 145 S.E. 14; Grant v. Graham Chero-Cola Bottling Co., supra.

A study of the evidence and the stipulations shows that the plaintiff has offered sufficient evidence to require submission of his case to the jury under the law laid down in many dicisions of this Court, and the defendant's motion for judgment of nonsuit was correctly denied.

The defendant assigns as error the refusal of the court to submit an issue of contributory negligence.

In Davis v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., supra, the defendant's evidence tended to show that the bursting of the Coca-Cola bottles was due to some other or outside cause and not to defective bottles or overcharge. An examination of the Record in that case discloses that no issue of contributory negligence was submitted.

This assignment of error poses this question: Is there sufficient evidence in the Record tending to show that the plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable care for his own safety, and such failure concurring with actionable negligence of the defendant contributed to the injury complained of as a proximate cause, so as to require the submission of such an issue to the jury? Sir A. P. Herbert has wittily and happily said (Uncommon Law p. 1) 'The Common Law of England has been...