Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 105 views

    Escola v. Coca Cola

    Uploaded by

    Luntian Dumlao
    1) Gladys Escola, a waitress, was injured when a Coca-Cola bottle she was holding suddenly exploded in her hand while transferring bottles to a refrigerator. 2) Escola argued that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied, allowing an inference of negligence, since bottles do not ordinarily explode absent negligence. 3) The court affirmed the jury's ruling in favor of Escola, finding that Coca-Cola had exclusive control over inspecting and charging the bottles, so all requirements to apply res ipsa loquitur were met.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Escola v. Coca Cola

    Uploaded by

    Luntian Dumlao
    105 views1 page
    1) Gladys Escola, a waitress, was injured when a Coca-Cola bottle she was holding suddenly exploded in her hand while transferring bottles to a refrigerator. 2) Escola argued that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied, allowing an inference of negligence, since bottles do not ordinarily explode absent negligence. 3) The court affirmed the jury's ruling in favor of Escola, finding that Coca-Cola had exclusive control over inspecting and charging the bottles, so all requirements to apply res ipsa loquitur were met.

    Original Description:

    Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Gladys Escola, a waitress, was injured when a Coca-Cola bottle she was holding suddenly exploded in her hand while transferring bottles to a refrigerator. 2) Escola argued that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied, allowing an inference of negligence, since bottles do not ordinarily explode absent negligence. 3) The court affirmed the jury's ruling in favor of Escola, finding that Coca-Cola had exclusive control over inspecting and charging the bottles, so all requirements to apply res ipsa loquitur were met.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    105 views1 page

    Escola v. Coca Cola

    Uploaded by

    Luntian Dumlao
    1) Gladys Escola, a waitress, was injured when a Coca-Cola bottle she was holding suddenly exploded in her hand while transferring bottles to a refrigerator. 2) Escola argued that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied, allowing an inference of negligence, since bottles do not ordinarily explode absent negligence. 3) The court affirmed the jury's ruling in favor of Escola, finding that Coca-Cola had exclusive control over inspecting and charging the bottles, so all requirements to apply res ipsa loquitur were met.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Escola v.

    Coca-Cola (1944)  view, however, the doctrine may be applied


      upon the theory that defendant had control at
    Gibson, ​C.J. the time of the alleged negligent act,
      although not at the time of the accident,
    I. Facts:   provided plaintiff first proves that the
      condition of the instrumentality had not been
    ● Gladys Escola is a waitress in a restaurant changed after it left the defendant's
    whose hand was injured when the Coca possession.
    Cola bottle she was holding suddenly ● Upon an examination of the record, the
    exploder in her hand. evidence appears sufficient to support a
    ● The accident occurred while Escola was reasonable inference that the bottle here
    transferring the Coke from the case with her involved was not damaged by any
    right hand one by one to the refrigerator. extraneous force after delivery to the
    Escola was able to transfer three cases until restaurant by defendant. It follows, therefore,
    the fourth one exploded in her hand 18 that the bottle was in some manner defective
    inches from the case. at the time defendant relinquished control,
    ● The bottle broke into two jagged pieces and because sound and properly prepared
    inflicted a deep five-inch cut, severing blood bottles of carbonated liquids do not ordinarily
    vessels. explode when carefully handled.
    ● Escola's employer testified that he saw this ● An explosion such as took place here might
    happened and was only twenty feet away have been caused by an excessive internal
    when he heard the explosion. pressure in a sound bottle, by a defect in the
    ● The driver of Coca Cola likewise testified glass of a bottle containing a safe pressure,
    that he had seen other bottles of Coke or by a combination of these two possible
    exploded before. However, the driver has no causes.
    idea why these bottles exploded. ● Although it is not clear in this case whether
    ● Escola rested her case relying solely on the the explosion was caused by an excessive
    doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. charge or a defect in the glass, there is a
    ● The jury ruled in favor of the plaintiff hence sufficient showing that neither cause would
    the appeal by Coca Cola to the US Supreme ordinarily have been present if due care had
    Court. been used. Further, defendant had exclusive
    control over both the charging and inspection
    II. Issue: ​WoN Plaintiff may use the doctrine of of the bottles. Accordingly, all the
    res ipsa loquitur to hold Coca-Cola liable for requirements necessary to entitle plaintiff to
    damages. ​YES  rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to
      supply an inference of negligence are
    III. Rationale:   present. 
     
    ● Many authorities state that the happening of IV. Dispositive: ​The judgment is affirmed.
    the accident does not speak for itself where
    it took place some time after defendant had
    relinquished control of the instrumentality
    causing the injury. Under the more logical

    You might also like