Title – Res Ipsa Loquitur

Case - Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 24 Cal.2d 453 (1944)

The Latin phrase "Res Ipsa Loquitur" means "the item speaks for itself." The idea of res ipsa
loquitur (or simply "res ipsa" for short) is an evidentiary rule in personal injury law that
permits plaintiffs to establish a rebuttable presumption of defendant negligence through the
use of circumstantial evidence. A notion in tort law that allows plaintiffs to meet their burden
of proof using what amounts to circumstantial evidence. By demonstrating that the harm
would not typically have occurred without negligence, that the object that produced the harm
was under the defendant's control, and that there are no other reasonable explanations, the
plaintiff can establish a rebuttable presumption of negligence by the defendant. For res ipsa
loquitur to apply, the accident in question must not be due to any voluntary action or
contribution by the plaintiff.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The plaintiff worked as a server, and one of her responsibilities was stocking the refrigerator
with Coca-Cola bottles. The plaintiff had picked up a case of the beverages and set it upon a
nearby cabinet near a refrigerator. She then proceeded to take the bottles from the case with
her right hand, one at a time, and put them into the refrigerator. The plaintiff was seriously
injured when a bottle exploded in her hand as she was putting it into the refrigerator. Plaintiff
sued Defendant, alleging that Defendant was negligent in selling "bottles containing said
beverage which were dangerous and liable to explode due to excessive pressure of the gas or
because of some flaw in the bottle." The plaintiff was found guilty by the jury.

ISSUES RAISED

 Whether under the facts shown in the instant case the conditions warranting
application of the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor have been satisfied. 
 Is Defendant liable for its failure to inspect a bottle of Coca-Cola that proves to have a
defect that causes injury to Plaintiff?
 

LAWS INVOLVED

 The res ipsa loquitur doctrine can be used to prove that a defendant had control of an
instrumentality at the time of the alleged negligent act, but not at the time of the
accident if the plaintiff can show that the instrumentality's condition had not changed
after it left the defendant's possession.
  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.

ARGUMENTS

Plaintiff:
 The bottle was admittedly charged with gas under pressure, and the charging of the
bottle was within the exclusive control of the defendant.
 Testimony was produced by others that had also witnessed the glass bottles shattering
in a seemingly spontaneous manner with no external pressure applied.

Defendant:
 The defendant provided extensive detail of the safety precautions followed during the
manufacturing process to ensure that their product would be safe to consume in the
glass bottles. 
 No evidence had been presented that anything had occurred after Coca-Cola had
delivered the bottles to the restaurant that would have added pressure to the bottle.

CONCLUSION

The case was appealed to the Supreme Court of California which upheld the trial court’s
judgment under the assertion that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was inapplicable and
that the evidence was insufficient to support the judgment.

The Court held:

 All of the requirements necessary to allow the waitress to rely on the doctrine of res
ipsa loquitur, to supply an inference of negligence, were present. 
 Although it was not clear whether the explosion was caused by an excessive charge or
a defect in the glass, there was a sufficient evidence showing that neither cause would
ordinarily have been present if due care had been used. 
 The bottling company maintained control over the product and thus was in the best
position to oversee the integrity of the safety protocol.
 Thus, if there was an issue with the pressure in the bottle, that issue would have arisen
during the manufacturing process and not while under the control of Coca-Cola
Bottling Co. of Fresno.

SEE ALSO

 Dunn v. Hoffman Beverage Co., 126 N.J.L. 556

 Honea v. City Dairy, Inc., 22 Cal.2d 614
 Olson v. Whitthorne Swan, 203 Cal. 206
 MacPherson v. Canada Dry Ginger Ale, Inc., 129 N.J.L. 365