Jim Whitney - Occidental College



|Jim Whitney |Economics 495 |

Case summary brief (2-page maximum)

|Recorder name: |Shelby King |

|Case name: |S.F. No. 16951 |

|Citation; Date: |July 5, 1994 |

|Court: |Supreme Court of California |

|Name (if specified) and description of litigants at the original trial court level |

|Plaintiff: |Gladys Escola – employee at a restaurant |

|Defendant: |Coca Cola Bottling Company of Fresno – maker of bottle of soda |

|Facts of the case: |

|The Coca Cola Bottling Company of Fresno delivered “several cases” of Coca Cola to the restaurant at which Escola was employed. These cases |

|were initially put under the counter where, after at least 36 hours, Escola removed the top case closer to the refrigerator where she intended |

|to move the bottles individually. The fourth bottle, which Escola attempted to place into the refrigerator, exploded in her hand causing a five|

|inch cut thereby “severing blood vessels, nerves and muscles of the thumb and palm of the hand. Despite not admitting the bottle fragments into|

|evidence, Escola, her employer, and a fellow employee all testify to hearing the bottle pop like a light bulb and then break. The contents flew|

|onto everything nearby while the top of the bottle remained in Escola’s hand and the other pieces fell to the floor. The fellow employee also |

|testified to the fact that Escola had not hit the bottle on anything nearby that may have caused the explosion; she was simply moving the |

|bottle into the refrigerator. |

| |

|Procedural history (remedy sought, prior rulings, grounds for appeal, etc., as available): |

|Escola seeks damages “for personal injuries resulting from bursting a bottle of coca cola.” The jury in the trial court awarded damages to |

|Escola. |

|Coca Cola Bottling Co thus appeals on the grounds that there is not enough evidence and res ipsa loquitur does not apply because Coca Cola |

|Bottling Co did not have control of the bottle when it exploded in Escola’s hand and because of the possibility of contributory negligence on |

|the part of the defendant. |

| |

|Court opinion (key issues and arguments): |

|The court ruled in favor of Escola, the plaintiff/respondent. The court explained a series of points in favor of Escola: (1) If the bottle was |

|in the same condition as it was when it left the bottling company, the “defendant had control at the time of the alleged negligent act, |

|although not at the time of the accident.” (2) Escola must provide a sufficient amount of evidence to prove that she is not contributory |

|negligent in order to show that the bottle was in fact defective when it left the bottling company. (3) To be able to correctly use the |

|doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, there must be evidence that there was “an excessive internal pressure in a sound bottle” or a “defect in the |

|glass of a bottling containing a safe pressure” or a combination of the two in addition to the possibility of an incorrect or incomplete |

|inspection of the bottles. (4) The bottling company reuses the glass bottles which are then not again subjected to inspection. (5) The doctrine|

|of res ipsa loquitur for the above reasons is applicable in the instant case. |

|Concurring opinion by Justice Traynor: |

|Justice Traynor believes that manufacturers should be held strictly liable for any damage which their products cause and is due to negligence. |

|The manufacturer has the best means of allocating risk and preventing the negligence of their products to begin with. Justice Traynor also |

|stresses the changing relationship between manufacturers and consumers with regards to the technicality of products and the distance between |

|the two parties. He argues: “the consumer no longer has means or skill enough to investigate for himself the soundness of a product, even when |

|it is not contained in a sealed package, and his erstwhile vigilance has been lulled by the steady efforts of manufacturers to build up |

|confidence by advertising and marketing devices such as trade-marks.” Consumers accept products solely based on faith. |

| |

|Dissenting opinion, if any (key issues and arguments): |

|N/a |

| |

|Disposition of case: |

|Judgment for the plaintiff was affirmed. |

|ANALYSIS OF THE CASE |

|1. Course topic of the case: |Default liability / res ipsa loquitor |

| |

|2. How does the case relate to the course topic? |

|For res ipsa loquitor, the plaintiff was required to show that the defendant was the actual cause of the negligence and injury. The case also |

|assigned the manufacturer strict liability for their product because they had control over the safety and proper functioning of the bottles. |

| |

|3. Which previously assigned cases, if any, are related to this case, and how does this one differ? |

|None |

| |

|4. How does the case affect economic incentives and efficiency? |

|It shifts the responsibility for product safety to the manufacturer. This has the advantage of the manufacturer more efficiently allocating |

|risks and taking all cost-effective precautions, but it could lead to a moral hazard on the part of the consumer because of lack of knowledge |

|or carelessness in response to the guarantee that the manufacturer will be held liable in the event of an injury. |

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download