| Venue: | CA SC |
| Facts: | Soda bottle blows up in waitress's hand as she moves it from the case to the refrigerator. |
| Posture: | Judgment for plaintiff at trial, affirmed on appeal. |
| Issue: | Is there negligence, even when the exact nature of the defect is unknown? |
| Holding: | Yes. Affirmed. |
| Rule: | It's up to the jury to determine whether a res ipsa inference has been properly rebutted. |
| Reasoning: | It's pretty clear that the bottle wouldn't explode if due care had been used. There's a nearly infallible method for testing bottles, and the people putting carbonation charges could be careful as well. It doesn't matter that we can't tell precisely why the bottle exploded-- the fact that it exploded is a sign that there was a defect, and the manufacturer is therefore liable. |
| Dicta: | Traynor (concurring): If a manufacturer puts a product on the marketi,
knowing that it will be used without inspection, and it has a
defect that causes injury, the manufacturer is liable, irrespective
of privity of contract. That's MacPherson.
If an inferred fact is rebutted in a clear, positive and uncontradicted way, the court must instruct the jury that the nonexistence of the fact has been established as a matter of law. Consumers no longer have the means or skill to investigate the safety of products, and the manufacturer's obligations must keep pace with that. |