Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Fresno

Supreme Court of California · 1944 · Torts

TortsRes ipsa loquiturNegligenceExploding bottlesres ipsa loquiturexclusive controlexploding bottlecarbonated beverage

Facts

Plaintiff, a restaurant waitress, was injured when a bottle of Coca Cola exploded in her hand while she was transferring bottles from a delivered case into a refrigerator. Defendant's driver had delivered the cases to the restaurant, where they remained under and behind the counter for at least thirty-six hours before the accident. Plaintiff and other witnesses testified that the bottle did not strike the case, refrigerator door, or another bottle before it exploded, and the contents flew outward upon the break. Plaintiff could not prove any specific act of negligence and relied entirely on res ipsa loquitur.

Issue

May plaintiff rely on res ipsa loquitur against the bottling company when a bottle of Coca Cola explodes after delivery to the restaurant, where plaintiff cannot show a specific negligent act but offers evidence that the bottle was carefully handled and not subjected to extraneous harmful forces after leaving defendant's possession?

Rule

Res ipsa loquitur applies only if (1) defendant had exclusive control of the thing causing the injury and (2) the accident is of a kind that ordinarily would not occur in the absence of defendant's negligence. When the accident occurs after defendant has relinquished possession, the doctrine may still apply if plaintiff proves the condition of the instrumentality was not changed after it left defendant's control, including evidence of due care during that interval and careful handling by plaintiff. Plaintiff need not eliminate every remote possibility of later damage; it is enough to present evidence permitting a reasonable inference that the item was not accessible to extraneous harmful forces and was carefully handled.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Portland, Oregon, Nora Vega stocked sparkling water bottles at a cafe. A bottle delivered two days earlier by Cascade Crest Bottling had remained in a closed storage alcove, and Nora testified she lifted it carefully from the crate without striking anything when it suddenly burst in her hand.

May Nora rely on res ipsa loquitur against Cascade Crest Bottling?

Explanation. The majority held that res ipsa loquitur can apply even though the bottler no longer had possession at the time of the accident, so long as the plaintiff first shows the condition of the instrumentality was not changed after it left defendant's control. The plaintiff need not eliminate every remote possibility of later damage; evidence supporting a reasonable inference of careful handling and no access to extraneous harmful forces is enough.