Court Opinion

ID: 9624445
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:03:11.217706+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:46.695982
License: Public Domain

CARTER, J.
I concur in the judgment of affirmance but would base the holding of this court upon the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, as the facts clearly bring the ease within the purview of that doctrine. This was the view of the trial court and of the District Court of Appeal by which court the case was first decided (see Saporito v. Purex Corp., Ltd. 1 (Cal.App.) 243 P.2d 910). In a well reasoned opinion written by Mr. Justice Pox the District Court of Appeal cited and relied upon the numerous cases heretofore decided by this court and the District Court of Appeal holding the res ipsa loquitur doctrine applicable in exploded bottle eases such as this *613(see Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., 24 Cal.2d 453 [150 P.2d 436]; DeCorsey v. Purex Corp., 92 Cal.App.2d 669 [207 P.2d 616] ; Gordon v. Aztec Brewing Co., 33 Cal.2d 514 [203 P.2d 522]).
In my opinion there was no justification whatsoever for this court granting a hearing and redeciding this case as it was correctly decided by the District Court of Appeal. The hearing in this case was granted in harmony with the policy of the present majority of this court to reexamine fact issues in negligence cases (see Pirkle v. Oakdale Union etc. School Dist., ante, pp. 207, 213 [253 P.2d 1]) and particularly cases involving the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (Hardin v. San Jose City Lines, Inc., 2(Cal.App.) 252 P.2d 46) and last clear chance (Daniels v. City & County of San Francisco 3(Cal.App.) 246 P.2d 125; Sills v. Los Angeles Transit Lines, 4(Cal.App.) 246 P.2d 65) even though such cases have been correctly decided by the District Court of Appeal. I have heretofore stated that I do not agree with this policy as it imposes an unnecessary burden upon this court which is now faced with the determination of numerous difficult legal problems to the solution of which the efforts and energies of the members of this court should be devoted instead of undertaking to reexamine and restate the more simple rules and doctrines which should be and are settled by a long line of well considered cases. Such is the situation in the case at bar and the same situation exists in numerous cases now pending before this court involving similar problems which were correctly decided by the District Courts of Appeal as will appear when the decisions in these cases are announced by this court.

A hearing was granted by the Supreme Court on June 26, 1952.

A hearing was granted hy the Supreme Court on March 12, 1953,

A hearing was granted hy the Supreme Court on Sept. 11, 1952.

A hearing was granted hy the Supreme Court on Sept. 11, 1952.