Title: Hattiesburg Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Barrett

State: mississippi

Issuer: Mississippi Supreme Court

Document:

497 So. 2d 809 (1986) HATTIESBURG COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO., INC. v. D.C. BARRETT. No. 56107. Supreme Court of Mississippi. November 5, 1986. S. Wayne Easterling, Easterling & Varnado, Hattiesburg, for appellant. Joe H. Montgomery, Williams, Williams & Montgomery, Poplarville, for appellee. Before ROY NOBLE LEE, P.J., and ANDERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ. GRIFFIN, Justice, for the Court: This is an exploding bottle (or cap) case. The plaintiff entered a convenience store in Lumberton for the express purpose of purchasing a 16-oz. bottle of Coca-Cola. In carrying out his purpose, he reached inside a cooler and attempted to remove the bottle from the plastic six-pack container, whereupon the cap blew off with fragments thereof striking him in the eyes and nose. In his words, for about two weeks he couldn't "see to amount to anything". He was accompanied by his son, and they immediately left for his residence where his daughter, a nurse's aide, cleaned the Coke and removed some fragments from his eye. Thereafter he visited a doctor and had total doctor and medical expenses of approximately $90.00. Plaintiff presented the owner of the store as a witness. His testimony supports a belief by the jury that the product was not mishandled after it was placed in the store by the appellant. The testimony in this case is transcribed on 90 pages of the record. The defendant offered its corporate president as an expert witness and he testified generally as to the manner of bottling and *810 packaging the product. On his testimony, the jury would have been justified in returning a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff alleged (1) strict liability, (2) breach of warranty, (3) negligence, or (4) res ipsa loquitur. The negligence issue was not pursued. The jury returned a verdict for $2500.00 in favor of the plaintiff. We affirm. For the sake of brevity, we simply state that the defendant made all proper motions to raise the issue of the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff's evidence. However, we believe and hold that the evidence presented a simple issue for the jury. Were it not for the fact that learned counsel for the appellant argues with a great deal of force that "This case is one having great significance in this jurisdiction in the field of products liability law", we would affirm without opinion. However, since there appears to be some disagreement in the legal profession as to the proper law, we do write and point out that the question here was decided on March 30, 1970, in Falstaff Brewing Corp. v. Williams, 234 So. 2d 620 (Miss. 1970), a unanimous opinion by Justice Stokes Robertson, who did not enjoy a reputation as a flaming liberal. In the Falstaff case, an employee of a restaurant in Natchez reached inside the ice box to remove a bottle of beer, and before she could touch the bottle it exploded, causing injury. The plaintiff offered no evidence of Defendant Falstaff's negligence. The matter was tried by a chancellor, and he found in favor of the plaintiff, awarding damages. The text of the opinion is as follows: 234 So. 2d at 623-24. We are unable to find any opinions of this Court that diminish to even the slightest degree the effect of Falstaff, supra. The appellant also assigns as error the giving of certain instructions, and further states that the verdict is excessive. The question concerning the instructions goes to the legal sufficiency of the evidence. This is answered above. Also, we find no merit in the assignment that the verdict is excessive. So that there will be no misunderstanding, we point out that the necessity of proof of the defendant's negligence in cases of this type has been relegated to its proper place in the legal history of this jurisdiction. AFFIRMED. WALKER, C.J., ROY NOBLE LEE and HAWKINS, P.JJ., and DAN M. LEE, PRATHER, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN and ANDERSON, JJ., concur.