Product Defect Case Series

Shoshone Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Dolinski, 82 Nev. 439, 420 P.2d 855 (1966).

Product:  A bottle of the soft drink “Squirt”

Injury: Mental distress

Mechanism of Injury: A decomposed mouse was found in his beverage bottle.

Nature of Defect:  A decomposed mouse was found in his beverage bottle.

Jury Verdict: Plaintiff

• $2,500
  • $18,598 in 2016 as per http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

Issue on appeal:

Product Defect Law Categories:

Result:

 

Case Quotes:

 

In Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., 24 Cal.2d 453, 150 P.2d 436, 440 (1944), Justice Traynor, in a concurring opinion, wrote: ‘Even if there is no negligence, however, public policy demands that responsibility be fixed wherever it will most effectively reduce the hazards to life and health inherent in defective products that reach the market.’ That point of view ultimately became the philosophy of the full court in Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc., 59 Cal.2d 57, 27 Cal.Rptr. 697, 377 P.2d 897 (1962). There Justice Traynor wrote: ‘The purpose of such liability is to insure that the cost of injuries resulting from defective products are borne by the manufacturer that put such products on the market rather than by the injured persons who are powerless to protect themselves.’

Shoshone Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Dolinski, 82 Nev. 439, 442, 420 P.2d 855, 857 (1966)

 

We believe that the quoted expressions of policy are sound as applied to the manufacturer and distributor of a bottled beverage. Indeed, eighteen states have judicially accepted strict liability, without negligence and without privity, as to manufacturers of all types of products; and six more have done so by statute. See Prosser, ‘The Full of The Citadel,’ 50 Minn.L.Rev. 791, 794, 795, 796 (1966). Though the appellant suggests that only the legislature may declare the policy of Nevada on this subject, the weight of case authority is contra. As indicated, most states approving the doctrine of strict liability have done so by court declaration.

Shoshone Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Dolinski, 82 Nev. 439, 442, 420 P.2d 855, 857 (1966)

 

Our acceptance of strict tort liability against the manufacturer and distributor of a bottled beverage does not mean that the plaintiff is relieved of the burden of proving a case. He must still establish that his injury was caused by a defect in the product, and that such defect existed when the product left the hands of the defendant. The concept of strict liability does not prove causation, nor does it trace cause to the defendant.

 

Shoshone Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Dolinski, 82 Nev. 439, 443, 420 P.2d 855, 857–58 (1966)