I. Issue
Whether a manufacturer is liable for a defect in its product under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur when there is not enough evidence.
II. Fact
A bottle of Coca Cola broke in P's hand, inflicting a deep cut. P relied on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. D contended that the evidence is insufficient.
III. Reasoning
Although it is not clear in this case whether the explosion was caused by an excessive charge or a defect in the glass there in a sufficient showing that neither cause would ordinarily have been present if due care had been used. Further, D had exclusive control over both the charging and inspection of the bottles. Accordingly, all the requirements necessary to entitle P to rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to supply an inference of negligence present.
IV. Holding
D is liable for the defect.
V. Concurring Opinion
In these cases the course of the manufacturer's liability was his negligence in the manufacturing process or in the inspection of component parts supplied by others. Even if there is no negligence, public policy demands that responsibility be fixed wherever it will most effectively reduce the hazards to life and health inherent in defective products that reach the market. An injured person is not ordinarily in a position to refute such evidence or identify the cause of the defect, for he can hardly be familiar with the manufacturing process as the manufacturer himself is. It is to the public interest to prevent injury to the public from any defective goods by the imposition of civil liability generally. The manufacturer's liability should be defined in terms of the safety of the product in normal and proper use, and should not extend to injuries that cannot be traced to the product as it reached the market.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.