Lee v. Crookston Coca-Cola Bottling Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1971 · Torts

TortsProducts liabilityStrict liabilityRes ipsa loquiturContributory negligenceExploding bottlestrict liabilityproducts liability

Facts

Helen Lee, a waitress, was injured when a quart Coca-Cola bottle exploded in her hand while she transferred bottles from a delivered case into a cooler at the steak house where she worked. The case had been delivered by defendant shortly before noon and remained undisturbed until Lee began moving the bottles one at a time; the bottle exploded while she lowered the third bottle into the cooler. Lee testified without contradiction that she had not struck the bottle on anything, and witnesses described a loud bang and glass fragments scattered widely around the area. The bottle fragments were discarded, and defendant later offered expert testimony opining that the bottle was struck a blow at the time it failed.

Issue

Did the trial court err by submitting contributory negligence to the jury based on expert opinion not grounded in facts supported by the record? Did the trial court also err by refusing to submit plaintiffs' strict-liability theory where the same circumstantial evidence was sufficient to justify submission of negligence under res ipsa loquitur?

Rule

An expert opinion based on a hypothetical question is admissible only if the assumed facts are supported by competent evidence in the record. In a products case, when a plaintiff proves injury by a product and the claimed defect is such that circumstantial evidence permits an inference that it is more probable than not that the product was defective when it left defendant's hands, absent the plaintiff's own want of care or misuse, the issue of liability may be submitted to the jury on both negligence and strict liability in tort. To recover under strict liability, the evidence must support findings that the product was in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous for its intended use, that the defect existed when it left defendant's control, and that the defect proximately caused the injury.

🔒

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 Duluth, Mara Jensen was stocking sealed glass tonic bottles delivered that morning by North Shore Sparkling Drinks, a fictional bottler. The case had remained untouched in a back room until Mara lifted bottles one at a time into a cooler, and the second bottle burst in her hand; both Mara and a coworker testified she did not hit, shake, or drop it, and the fragments were thrown away during cleanup.

Should the court submit Mara's claim to the jury on strict liability even though she cannot identify a specific manufacturing flaw in the bottle?

Explanation. The majority held that a plaintiff need not prove a specific defect where circumstantial evidence supports an inference that it is more probable than not the product was defective when it left the defendant's control. In exploding-bottle cases, the product and defect may be destroyed, so circumstantial proof can justify submission on strict liability just as it can under res ipsa negligence. Negligence need not be proved to submit strict liability.