Chat with AI
Business Law 9th Edition by Henry Cheeseman
Edition 9ISBN: 978-0134004778Business Law 9th Edition by Henry Cheeseman
Edition 9ISBN: 978-0134004778 Exercise 1
STATE COURT CASE Defect in Manufacture
Shoshone Coca-Cola Bottling Company v. Dolinski
82 Nev. 439, 420 P.2d 855, 1966 Nev. Lexis 260
Supreme Court of Nevada
"In the case at hand, Shoshone contends that insufficient proof was offered to establish that the mouse was in the bottle of 'Squirt' when it left Shoshone's possession."
-Thompson, Justice
Facts
Leo Dolinski purchased a bottle of Squirt, a soft drink, from a vending machine at a Sea and Ski plant, his place of employment. Dolinski opened the bottle and consumed part of its contents. He immediately became ill. On examination, it was found that the bottle contained the decomposed body of a mouse, mouse hair, and mouse feces. Dolinski suffered physical and mental distress from consuming the decomposed mouse and thereafter possessed an aversion to soft drinks. The Shoshone Coca-Cola Bottling Company (Shoshone) had manufactured and distributed the Squirt bottle. Dolinski sued Shoshone, basing his lawsuit on the doctrine of strict liability. The trial court adopted the doctrine of strict liability, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. Shoshone appealed.
Issue
Was there a defect in the manufacture of the Squirt bottle that caused the plaintiff's injuries?
Language of the Court
In our view, public policy demands that one who places upon the market a bottled beverage in a condition dangerous for use must be held strictly liable to the ultimate user for injuries resulting from such use, although the seller has exercised all reasonable care. The plaintiff offered the expert testimony of a toxicologist who examined the bottle and contents on the day the plaintiff drank from it. It was his opinion that the mouse "had been dead for a long time" and that the dark stains (mouse feces) that he found on the bottom of the bottle must have been there before the liquid was added.
Decision
The supreme court of Nevada adopted the doctrine of strict liability and held that the evidence supported the trial court's finding that there was a defect in manufacture. The supreme court affirmed the trial court's decision in favor of plaintiff Dolinski.
Was it ethical for Shoshone to argue that it was not liable to Dolinski? Could this case have been "faked"?
Shoshone Coca-Cola Bottling Company v. Dolinski
82 Nev. 439, 420 P.2d 855, 1966 Nev. Lexis 260
Supreme Court of Nevada
"In the case at hand, Shoshone contends that insufficient proof was offered to establish that the mouse was in the bottle of 'Squirt' when it left Shoshone's possession."
-Thompson, Justice
Facts
Leo Dolinski purchased a bottle of Squirt, a soft drink, from a vending machine at a Sea and Ski plant, his place of employment. Dolinski opened the bottle and consumed part of its contents. He immediately became ill. On examination, it was found that the bottle contained the decomposed body of a mouse, mouse hair, and mouse feces. Dolinski suffered physical and mental distress from consuming the decomposed mouse and thereafter possessed an aversion to soft drinks. The Shoshone Coca-Cola Bottling Company (Shoshone) had manufactured and distributed the Squirt bottle. Dolinski sued Shoshone, basing his lawsuit on the doctrine of strict liability. The trial court adopted the doctrine of strict liability, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. Shoshone appealed.
Issue
Was there a defect in the manufacture of the Squirt bottle that caused the plaintiff's injuries?
Language of the Court
In our view, public policy demands that one who places upon the market a bottled beverage in a condition dangerous for use must be held strictly liable to the ultimate user for injuries resulting from such use, although the seller has exercised all reasonable care. The plaintiff offered the expert testimony of a toxicologist who examined the bottle and contents on the day the plaintiff drank from it. It was his opinion that the mouse "had been dead for a long time" and that the dark stains (mouse feces) that he found on the bottom of the bottle must have been there before the liquid was added.
Decision
The supreme court of Nevada adopted the doctrine of strict liability and held that the evidence supported the trial court's finding that there was a defect in manufacture. The supreme court affirmed the trial court's decision in favor of plaintiff Dolinski.
Was it ethical for Shoshone to argue that it was not liable to Dolinski? Could this case have been "faked"?
Explanation
Verified
Verified
Case summary:
Person LD has purchased a...
Business Law 9th Edition by Henry Cheeseman
Why don’t you like this exercise?
Other Minimum 8 character and maximum 255 character
Character 255
