Cocola V. Coca Cola Bottling Summary

484 Words1 Page

Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co.
After delivering several boxes by coca cola to a restaurant and stacking them behind a counter where they stayed for 36 hours before handling. Gladys Escola, a waitress in that restaurant. Started taking out bottles of Coca-Cola from the beverage boxes and putting it in the refrigerator when one of the bottles exploded in her hand and caused a severe cut by broken glass. She brought action against coca cola bottling company claiming that the bottle was defective. Relying completely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur “the thing speaks for itself”. The driver who delivered the bottles had admitted that he saw many bottles explode in the past.
Legal issue: Is the defendant totally liable for its failure to examine a bottle of Coca-Cola that has a defect that caused injury to Plaintiff? Does the doctrine of res ispa loquitur apply as an implication of negligence from the defendant for the defective bottle that was delivered? …show more content…

The Plaintiff then rested her case, having announced to the court that being unable to show any specific acts of negligence she depended completely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
The doctrine of Res ipsa loquitur applies only in 2 cases. When the defendant has control of the thing that caused the injury and there was no interference by the plaintiff that lead to the accident. Another case is if this accident wouldn’t occur in the absence of negligence by the defendant. In this case, the bottle was over charged with gas under pressure when the bottle was within the exclusive control of the defendant and this wouldn’t incur without negligence or if duty of care had been

More about Cocola V. Coca Cola Bottling Summary

Open Document