 |
studentJD |
|
|
Students Helping Students |
Currently Briefing & Updating |
© 2010 No content replication for monetary use of any kind is allowed without express written permission
|
Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., 150 P.2d 436 |
Supreme Court of California |
1944 |
|
Chapter |
16 |
Title |
Products Liability |
|
Page |
636 |
Topic |
Negligence Assaults The Citadel Of Privity |
|
Quick Notes |
Coke bottle blow up in hand and res ipsa loquitur is used. |
||
|
Issue |
o Whether res ipsa loquitur can be used on a manufacturer? Yes. |
|
Procedure |
|
|
Trial |
o Jury rendered verdict for the Pl |
|
Supreme |
o Affirmed |
|
Facts |
Reason |
Rules |
|
o Pl - Escola o Df - Coca Cola Bottling Co., What happened? o A waitress was placing coca cola bottles into a refrigerator. o The bottle blew up in her hand severing blood vessels and causing nerve damage. Witnesses o Pl - employer said he heard a load pop. Eye Witness Testimony o Fellow employee said it did not bang either the case or the door or another bottle when it popped. |
What is the cause of action? Negligence. Res Ipsa Loquitur allows the Pl to establish Duty and Breach.
Chief Justice Gibson
Pl use of res ipsa loquitur o Pl was unable to show any specific acts of negligence so she relied on res ipsa loquitur.
Elements of res ipsa loquitur o The Df - bottling company had exclusive control of the bottle at the time the negligent act must have occurred, that is, during the bottling process. o The Pl must show that the bottle was not changed after it left the Df - control. o The Pl is also required to prove that she handled the bottle carefully, so as to negate her own conduct as the source of the accident.
Court Noted About the requirements o The Pl was NOT required to eliminate every remote possibility of injury to the bottle after the Df lost control. o The requirement is satisfied if there is evidence permitting a reasonable inference that it was NOT accessible to extraneous harmful forces and that it was carefully handled by the Pl or any third party who may have moved or touched it.
Holding o There is sufficient showing that neither excessive charge or defect in the glass would ordinarily been present if due care had been used. o The Df had exclusive control over both the charging and inspection of the bottles.
o
Affirmed J. Traynor (Concurring) o Argues for strict liability. o A manufacturer incurs an absolute liability when an article that he has placed on the market, knowing that it is to be used without inspection, proves to have a defect that causes injury to human beings.
Manufacturers Liability was his negligence in the following o In the manufacturing process, OR o In the inspection process.
Public Policy o Public policy demands that responsibility be fixed wherever it will most effectively reduce the hazards to life and health inherent in defective products that reach the market. [Liability without negligence]. o The risk of injury can be insured by the manufacturer and distributed among the public as a cost of doing business. o Against such a risk there should be general and constant protection and the manufacturer is best situated to afford such protection.
Law of Warranty
Public Policy
Liability of the manufacturer o The liability of the manufacturer to an immediate buyer injured by a defective product follows without proof of negligence from the implied warranty of safety attending the sale.
J. Cardozo o Judge Cardozo's reasoning recognized the injured person as the real party in interest and effectively disposed of the theory that the liability of the manufacturer incurred by his warranty should apply only to the immediate purchaser.
Consumers o Consumers no longer approach products warily but accept them on faith, relying on the reputation of the manufacturer, who has sought to justify that faith by increasingly high standards of inspection, and a readiness to make good on defective products by way of replacements and refunds.
Retailers o Certainly there is greater reason to impose liability on the manufacturer than on the retailer who is but a conduit of a product that he is not himself able to test.
Manufacturer's liability o The manufacturer's liability should be defined in terms of the safety of the product in normal and proper use, and should not extend to injuries that cannot be traced to the product as it reached the market. |
|
|
Rules |
|
Law of Warranty
Liability of the manufacturer o The liability of the manufacturer to an immediate buyer injured by a defective product follows without proof of negligence from the implied warranty of safety attending the sale. |
|
Class Notes |
|
Law of Warranty o Injuries caused by defective products are usually remedied via tort through the law of warranty.
Liability of the manufacturer o The liability of the manufacturer to an immediate buyer injured by a defective product follows without proof of negligence from the implied warranty of safety attending the sale.
Element of Res Ipsa Loquitur 1. Exclusive control 2. Eliminated other causes 3. Does not usually happen in the absence of negligence (flower pot falling out of the window).
Res ipsa loquitur allows you to prove duty and breach o D has to be in exclusive control under res ipsa loquitur o She had to show the bottle was in the same condition as when it left Ds control. o She had to show she handled it carefully. o She also had to show that it doesnt usually happen absent negligence.
Res Ipsa Loquitur is approaching strict liability.
He wanted to use the law of warranties of strict liability.
Manufactures Liability o The manufacture buys insurance, but the consumer alternately pays higher prices, so it makes sense to make the manufacture strictly liable.
This case is at the edge of negligence, and approaching strict liability
Justice Traynors Concurrence o This case is famous for Traynors concurrence
o He said this area of the law should be expanded to consider warranties as a basis of liability o Breach of warranty is essentially strict liability.
Public Policy o The manufacturer is in the best position to fix the problem. o Public policy demands that responsibility be fixed wherever it will most effectively reduce the hazards to life and health inherent in defective products that reach the market. [Liability without negligence].
o Public policy requires that the buyer be insured at the sellers expense against injury. o The manufacturer can easily get insurance and the consumer ultimately pays for thisCost distribution throughout society. o The Pl - ability to get evidence against a manufacturer is very difficult at times Secrets in trade, etc. Strict liability overcomes this problem! |