Case Name: C. S. EVANS v. CHARLOTTE PEPSI-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1940-01-03
Citations: 216 N.C. 716
Docket Number: 
Parties: C. S. EVANS v. CHARLOTTE PEPSI-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY.
Judges: Seawell, J., concurs in dissent.
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 216
Pages: 716–719

Head Matter:
C. S. EVANS v. CHARLOTTE PEPSI-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY.
(Filed 3 January, 1940.)
Pood § 16 — Evidence held insufficient for jury in this action by consumer to recover damages resulting from deleterious substance in bottled drink.
Evidence that plaintiff was injured by a foreign, deleterious substance in a drink bottled by defendant, that the bottle containing the foreign deleterious substance was not uniform in that the neck of the bottle was not directly over the center of its bottom, without evidence of defective machinery or failure to inspect and without evidence that.like foreign, deleterious substances had been found in other drinks bottled by defendant under substantially similar conditions at about the same time, is held insufficient to be submitted to the jury on the issue of negligence, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur not applying to such cases.
Stacy, O. J., dissenting.
Seawell, J., concurs in dissent.
Clakkson, J., not sitting.
Appeal by defendant from Phillips, J., at February Term, 1939, of UNION.
Vann & Milliken for plaintiff, appellee.
W. C. Davis and E. Osborne Ayscue for defendant, appellant.

Opinion:
Schenck, J.
This is an action by a consumer to recover of a bottler damages resulting from drinking bottled beverage containing noxious substance.
When the plaintiff had introduced his evidence and rested his case the defendant moved for judgment as in case of nonsuit and renewed his motion after all the evidence on both sides was in. C. S., 567. This motion was refused and defendant, appellant, preserved exception.
There was evidence tending to show that in January or February, 1938, the plaintiff purchased a bottle of Pepsi-Cola from the Purol Filling Station in Wingate, North Carolina, which had been bottled and placed on the market by the defendant to be sold to and consumed by the public; that upon drinking from one-fourth to one-half of the contents of the bottle the plaintiff was made desperately sick; and that upon an analysis of the contents of the bottle it was found to contain one grain of arsenic trioxide per fluid ounce of Pepsi-Cola, which was in excess of a lethal portion. There was further evidence tending to show that the bottle which contained the Pepsi-Cola purchased by the plaintiff was not uniform in shape in that the neck of the bottle was not directly over the center of the bottom thereof, and that the bottle was "crooked."
There was no evidence that any other like products manufactured under substantially similar conditions and sold by the defendant at about the same time contained foreign or deleterious substances, and the plaintiff must rely solely upon evidence that related to the one "crooked" bottle containing arsenic trioxide. No other incident was mentioned in the evidence.
There was no evidence of defective machinery or failure to inspect; no evidence of negligence, unless the bare fact of the "crooked" bottle containing arsenic trioxide be construed as such evidence. To so construe the evidence requires the application of the doctrine of res ipsa-loquitur, which according to the decisions of this Court the plaintiff is not entitled to call to his aid. Enloe v. Bottling Co., 208 N. C., 305; Perry v. Bottling Co., 196 N. C., 175; Lamb v. Boyles, 192 N. C., 542; Cashwell v. Bottling Works, 174 N. C., 324.
We are constrained to hold that his Honor erred in overruling the demurrer to the evidence and that the judgment below should be
Reversed.