Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. --- 24 Cal. 2d 453, 150 P.2d 436 (1944)
Facts
While the plaintiff, a waitress of a restaurant, placed Coca Cola bottles into the refrigerator, one of them broke in her hand with a loud pop. Because of this explosion, the plaintiff deeply cut her right hand and also her blood vessels, nerves and muscles were severed. One of the employees at the scene also explained the plaintiff was doing nothing in handling the bottles inappropriately. The plaintiff instituted this suit against the defendant company, arguing it was their negligence to produce defective products.
Issue
Is the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applicable to infer the defendant’s negligence where a carbonated drink in a defective bottle exploded in the absence of evidence that the bottle was not improperly handled by the employee of the restaurant?
Rules
Honea v. City Dairy, Inc.
Res ipsa loquitur does not apply unless
(1) defendant had exclusive control of the thing causing the injury and
(2) the accident is of such a nature that it ordinarily would not occur in the absence of negligence by the defendant.
Application
The plaintiff claimed that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur should be applied, because the bottle exploded due to the defendant’s negligence. The defendant counters that there is insufficient evidence to hold that the incidence was caused by negligence on their end. The court found no facts that the plaintiff had handled the bottle negligently. Also, a normal carbonated drink would not explode without outward stimulation. It is, thus, reasonable to infer that the bottle was somehow damaged before arriving at the plaintiff’s restaurant. According to Honea v. City Dairy, Inc., res ipsa loquitur applies when the defendant had exclusive control of the defective product and accident would not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence by the defendant. The doctrine is applicable in the present case since the given facts provided that no one improperly handled the drinks and the carbonated liquids do not ordinarily explode when carefully handled. Hence, it would be reasonable to infer that the cause of the explosion was due to the defendant’s negligence.
Holding
Yes, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable.
Conclusion
Affirmed.
Feedback and notes
doctrine of res ipsa loquitur- 과실추정칙
a court can infer negligence from the very nature of an accident or injury in the absence of direct evidence on how any defendant behaved in the context of tort litigation.
To figure out what is the appropriate case to apply res ipsa loquitur, we’ve explored numerous parallel hypos developed from today’s case. Such as cases where the victim in a situation would not have any control over the defect- unintended sudden acceleration of the car, severed finger due to the escalator, elevator dropping accident, and a flight malfunction, train accident, plastic surgery. I personally thought that plastic surgery is not res ipsa loquitur because I understood that any incident that happens pretty often may not be said res ipsa loquitur and surgery incident was one of the situations I thought happens often. Yet from the class discussion I was able to learn that in a case where the person is especially unconscious, due to the exclusive control by the defendant’s side, res ipsa loquitur may apply. There is a trend to move to sufficient control from exclusive control in some jurisdictions which will allow easier application of res ipsa loquitur.