Boyd v. Marion Coca-Cola Bottling Co.
126 S.E.2d 178, 240 S.C. 383, 1962 S.C. LEXIS 116 (1962)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a negligence action against a bottler, evidence that multiple bottles from the same batch or delivery exploded on different occasions is sufficient circumstantial evidence to create a permissible inference of negligence for a jury to consider, even in a jurisdiction that does not recognize the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
Facts:
- Respondent, a rural store operator, purchased several cases of Coca-Cola from Appellant, Marion Coca-Cola Bottling Company, which were delivered on October 19, 1957.
- Approximately five and a half hours after the delivery, Respondent was transferring bottles from a crate to his drink box.
- While he was moving the bottles, one Coca-Cola bottle exploded.
- Shortly after the first explosion, a second bottle from the same crate also exploded, causing an injury to Respondent's face that required ten stitches.
- About two weeks later, a third bottle of Coca-Cola from the same delivery exploded while sitting undisturbed in its crate.
Procedural Posture:
- Respondent sued Appellant in a state trial court, alleging six theories of negligence.
- During the trial, counsel for Respondent agreed to strike one claim of negligence related to the manufacture of the bottle.
- The trial court eliminated a second claim of negligence related to defects in the bottle.
- The case was submitted to a jury on the remaining claims, and the jury returned a verdict for the Respondent.
- Appellant, the defendant at trial, appealed the verdict and judgment to the Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a jurisdiction that rejects the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, does evidence that multiple bottles of a carbonated beverage from the same delivery exploded on separate occasions create a sufficient inference of the bottler's negligence to submit the case to a jury?
Opinions:
Majority - Taylor, Chief Justice
Yes. While the explosion of a single bottle of a carbonated beverage is not, by itself, sufficient to establish a case of actionable negligence, an inference of negligence sufficient for a jury's consideration arises when it is shown that other bottles, filled by the same bottler under similar circumstances and around the same time, have also exploded. The court reasoned that although South Carolina does not recognize the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, negligence can be established by circumstantial evidence. Citing the precedent set in Merchant v. Columbia Coca-Cola Bottling Co., the court found that the evidence of two bottles exploding in quick succession, followed by a third exploding two weeks later, forms a basis for the permissible inference that the bottler failed to exercise the required degree of care.
Analysis:
This decision establishes an important evidentiary standard for product liability cases involving sealed containers in jurisdictions that reject the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. By allowing an inference of negligence based on proof of multiple, similar product failures, the court provides a viable path for plaintiffs who cannot access direct evidence of a manufacturer's specific negligent act. This 'multiple incidents' rule prevents manufacturers from easily obtaining dismissal and forces them to rebut the inference of negligence, thus balancing the evidentiary challenges faced by consumers injured by potentially defective products.
Unlock the full brief for Boyd v. Marion Coca-Cola Bottling Co.