Court Opinion

ID: 9685623
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:53:25.00955+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:08.710894
License: Public Domain

Peterson, Justice
(dissenting).
Resort to the theory of res ipsa loquitur to establish the liability of defendant Coca-Cola Bottling Company is inappropriate *258and, without it, the verdict cannot be supported. There is no evidence that the bottle was so defective as to explode in normal use. The evidence establishes, to the contrary, that the explosion of the bottle and the application of external force were concomitant events. Even if we were to disregard the inescapable inference that the explosion was the result of plaintiffs own act of mishandling, considerable time had elapsed since the bottle passed from the exclusive control of this defendant, with obvious opportunity for mishandling by others while it was in the possession of the exonerated defendant, Penney’s Supermarket, Inc.
Otis, Justice
(dissenting).
I concur in the dissent of Mr. Justice Peterson. Kerr v. Corning Glass Works, 284 Minn. 115, 169 N. W. (2d) 587, controls.
Mr. Justice Kelly, not having been a member of this court at the time of the argument and submission, took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.