The U.S. has a reputation for being particularly litigious. With that being said, if a consumer gets injured using a company’s product, it is understandable to seek compensation. If a company’s product caused serious injury to a consumer, one would think a court victory should be an absolute no-brainer win, right? Well, there was a time where companies were not always liable for their products.
In 1944, an incident in a California restaurant changed product liability claims forever.
Setting the Scene for the Explosion
Gladys Escola was a server at a restaurant working in Fresno, California in 1944. She was stocking bottles of Coca-Cola onto the shelves, when one bottle suddenly exploded in her hand. The incident resulted in a five-inch cut that damaged blood vessels, nerves, and muscles of her hand.
When Escola took the case to court, the actual bottle could not be used as evidence because employees had thrown away the pieces of glass immediately following the incident. Meanwhile on the defense side, Coca-Cola was able to present its case and explained its protocol for how the glass is manufactured and the methods used in testing and inspecting bottles.
The Initial Lawsuit
Escola was unable to show any particular acts of negligence, and the defense had specific details regarding safety inspections. However, Escola relied completely on the doctrine of “res ipsa loquitur” meaning the principle that the occurrence of an accident implies negligence. Essentially, the court can rule that the manufacturer has exclusive control over whatever caused the injury even though there is no specific evidence of negligence.
Proving negligence with no evidence can be complicated and challenging. The initial ruling was in favor of the plaintiff; however, Coca-Cola appealed the decision and it eventually was brought to the Supreme Court of California.
The Final Verdict
The final verdict ultimately ruled in favor of Escola although there still wasn’t substantial evidence on either side to prove exactly what caused the incident. However, considering that carefully handled bottles do not ordinarily explode, there was enough supporting information to imply that the bottle was defective in some way, therefore implying negligence from Coca-Cola.
While this may seem like a standard court ruling nowadays, it was the concurring opinion that brought the case mainstream attention. Judge Roger Trayor made the point that instead of arguing for negligence, a rule of strict liability should be imposed so that manufacturers are responsible for all products that cause injury to consumers. It wasn’t until 1963, almost 20 years later, that the court officially adopted Traynor’s rule.
Future Implications for Product Liability
Today, the court rules that a manufacturer incurs absolute liability when an article that he has placed on the market, knowing that it is to be used without inspection, proves to have a defect that causes injury to humans.
Here at eGenerationMarketing we provide leads for all personal injury case types. While auto accidents often generate high settlements, cases like Escola v. Coca-Cola show that there could always be a high-quality product liability, general liability, slip and fall, or other non-auto personal injury case as well. If you want to learn about how we can bring more cases to your firm, contact us at 617.800.0089.