Case Name: CHARLES R. REECE v. DURHAM COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1929-11-06
Citations: 197 N.C. 661
Docket Number: 
Parties: CHARLES R. REECE v. DURHAM COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 197
Pages: 661–662

Head Matter:
CHARLES R. REECE v. DURHAM COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY.
(Filed 6 November, 1929.)
Food A a — In this action to recover damages for foreign substance in bottled drink plaintiff’s evidence held insufficient.
In his action to recover damages resulting from foreign and deleterious substances in a bottled drink the burden is on the plaintiff to show the presence of foreign or deleterious substances therein, and where the plaintiff’s evidence is to the effect that he swallowed something and spit, and that where he spit a fly was immediately found, but. that he could not swear that the fly was ever in his mouth, with evidence of another witness that he had found a substance in a drink bottled by the defendant, but could not swear in what year he found it, the plaintiff’s evidence is too vague and indefinite to establish the defendant’s negligence, and his motion as of nonsuit should have been granted.
Civil action, before Sinclair, J., April Term, 1929, of Granville.
Tbe plaintiff alleged “tbat on tbe morning of 8 July, 1926, plaintiff entered tbe store of said C. H. Breedlove in tbe town of Oxford, and purchased a bottled coca-cola, wbicb bad been bottled and distributed by tbe defendant; that while plaintiff was engaged in drinking said bottled coca-cola, and after be bad drunk about all of tbe contents of said bottle be discovered something bard in bis mouth; tbat be immediately spat out what was in bis mouth, and upon examination discovered tbat it was a large green bottle fly, which bad entered plaintiff’s mouth with tbe other contents of said bottle.” Plaintiff further alleged tbat by reason of tbe presence of said fly in tbe beverage be became sick and was unable to eat for several days.
Issues were submitted to tbe jury and answered in favor of plaintiff. Tbe verdict awarded damages in tbe sum of $50. Tbe defendant offered no evidence.
From judgment upon tbe verdict defendant appealed.
No counsel for plaintiff.
Brawley & Gantt for defendant.

Opinion:
BeogdeN, J.
Plaintiff testified: "I was talking witH Mr.- Lanier while I was drinking. I swallowed something and spit, but don't know what it was. It- scratched like a piece of trash. As soon as that hit my throat I spit the balance on the floor. I knew I swallowed something, but I did not feel anything else in my mouth. I did not feel the fly in my mouth. I would not swear that it was ever in my mouth."
There was uncontradicted evidence that at the place on the floor where plaintiff spit a fly was immediately found. However, it is, apparent that plaintiff's own narrative fails to disclose the actual presence of a fly in the beverage.
Plaintiff offered the testimony of a witness who stated that he discovered something in a bottle once or twice "while working in a filling station that sold beverage bottled by the defendant." "Witness further testified: "I know almost that it was in 1926 that I found the substance in the bottle, but I do not know entirely, and I would not swear to it. . . . I would not swear that it was 1926 or 1927 when I found that substance in the bottle." . . .
This evidence was too vague and indefinite to establish negligent default.
The law imposed upon the plaintiff the burden of offering evidence tending to show the presence of foreign and deleterious substance in the beverage. The principle was thus stated in Perry v. Bottling Co., 196 175, 145 S. E., 14. "It is settled law in this jurisdiction that the principle of res ipsa loquitur does not apply to personal injury occasioned by bursting bottles or from eating food alleged to be unwholesome, or for partaking of a bottled beverage when there is no evidence tending to show negligence in the preparation of the food or beverage and.no deleterious or harmful substance is found therein." Lamb v. Boyles, 192 N. C., 542, 135 S. E., 464.
We are of the opinion that the motion for nonsuit should have been allowed.
Eeversed.