Lee v. Crookston Coca-Cola Bottling Co. case brief summary
188 N.W.2d 426 (1971)
CASE FACTS
The judgment was reversed and remanded for a new trial because the trial court committed reversible error by submitting the contributory negligence issue to the jury when the record was devoid of any evidence upon which a finding of contributory negligence could be sustained. A new trial was also necessary because the trial court erroneously refused to submit plaintiff's requested strict liability theory to jury.
Suggested Study Aids For Tort Law
188 N.W.2d 426 (1971)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Plaintiff, a waitress injured by an
exploding soda bottle that had been bottled by defendant bottling
company, sought review of the judgment of the Polk County District
Court (Minnesota), which returned a general verdict in favor of
defendant in suit brought by plaintiff to recover damages for
injuries plaintiff sustained from the alleged explosion.CASE FACTS
- Plaintiff, a waitress, was injured while working when a soda bottle exploded in her hand and a glass fragment of the bottle punctured a nerve in her wrist.
- Plaintiff and her husband brought suit against defendant, the bottling company of the soda, to recover damages upon pleaded theories of breach of implied warranty, negligence, and strict liability.
- The court submitted the case to a jury on the theories of breach of implied warranty and negligence under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
- The jury returned a verdict for defendant.
- On appeal, the court found that the trial court committed reversible error when it submitted the issue of contributory negligence to the jury because the record was devoid of any evidence upon which a finding of contributory negligence could be sustained.
- Because it could be inferred from the circumstantial evidence that it was more probable than not that the product was defective when it left defendant's hands and because no misuse on plaintiff's part was shown, a new trial was necessary because the issue of liability should also have been submitted to the jury on the requested strict liability theory.
The judgment was reversed and remanded for a new trial because the trial court committed reversible error by submitting the contributory negligence issue to the jury when the record was devoid of any evidence upon which a finding of contributory negligence could be sustained. A new trial was also necessary because the trial court erroneously refused to submit plaintiff's requested strict liability theory to jury.
Suggested Study Aids For Tort Law
No comments:
Post a Comment