Shoshone Coca-Cola Bottling Company v. Dolinski

Nevada Supreme Court
1966 Nev. LEXIS 260, 82 Nev. 439, 420 P.2d 855 (1966)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A manufacturer or distributor of a product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user is strictly liable in tort for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user, even if the seller has exercised all possible care and the user has not entered into a contractual relation with the seller.

Facts:

Leo Dolinski was employed at the Sea and Ski plant.
Shoshone Coca-Cola Bottling Company manufactured, bottled, and sold the soft drink 'Squirt'.
Shoshone supplied a vending machine to the Sea and Ski plant and regularly delivered beverages, including 'Squirt', to stock the machine.
Dolinski purchased a bottle of 'Squirt' from the vending machine at his workplace.
While drinking the beverage, Dolinski discovered a decomposed mouse inside the bottle.
As a result of consuming the contaminated beverage, Dolinski suffered physical illness and long-term mental distress, including a conditioned reflex aversion to soft drinks and a 20-pound weight loss.

Procedural Posture:

Leo Dolinski filed a lawsuit against Shoshone Coca-Cola Bottling Company in a Nevada trial court.
Dolinski's complaint alleged liability based on breach of implied warranty, negligence, and strict tort liability.
Dolinski subsequently abandoned the warranty and negligence claims, proceeding to trial solely on the theory of strict tort liability.
A jury trial was held, resulting in a verdict for Dolinski and an award of $2,500 in damages.
Shoshone Coca-Cola Bottling Company, as the appellant, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Nevada.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the doctrine of strict tort liability apply to a manufacturer and distributor of a bottled beverage whose product contains a defect that causes injury to the ultimate consumer?

Opinions:

Majority - Thompson, J.

Yes. A manufacturer or distributor is subject to strict tort liability for injuries caused by a defective product. Public policy demands that responsibility be fixed where it will most effectively reduce hazards to health, and the costs of such injuries should be borne by the manufacturers who place defective products on the market, rather than by the injured persons who are powerless to protect themselves. This liability applies even if the seller exercised all reasonable care and there is no privity of contract. The plaintiff retains the burden of proving that the injury was caused by a defect in the product and that the defect existed when the product left the defendant's control. The plaintiff does not, however, bear a separate burden of disproving tampering; evidence tracing the cause to the defendant is sufficient to allow a jury to find an absence of tampering.

Analysis:

This decision marks Nevada's judicial adoption of the doctrine of strict products liability, aligning the state with a growing national trend. It significantly alters tort law in Nevada by removing the requirements of privity of contract (necessary for warranty claims) and proof of negligence. This lowers the evidentiary bar for plaintiffs injured by defective products, shifting the focus from the manufacturer's conduct to the condition of the product itself. The ruling also clarifies that proving a defect existed when the product left the manufacturer's control implicitly negates the possibility of tampering, simplifying the plaintiff's burden of proof on causation.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Shoshone Coca-Cola Bottling Company v. Dolinski (1966)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature