{
  "id": 1446927,
  "name": "Coca-Cola Bottling Company v. Cromwell",
  "name_abbreviation": "Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Cromwell",
  "decision_date": "1942-03-02",
  "docket_number": "4-6634",
  "first_page": "933",
  "last_page": "934",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "203 Ark. 933"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "159 S.W.2d 744"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 262,
    "char_count": 2981,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.505,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.317852702137001e-08,
      "percentile": 0.43625188186647174
    },
    "sha256": "d28a5d78ef7d2a0ecd9b906e7d522284872543bfc5dcdf5104428f9124292128",
    "simhash": "1:a6c2dcc1c1bcab09",
    "word_count": 497
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T23:00:45.785345+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Mr. Justice Humphreys dissents in respect of the reduction."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Coca-Cola Bottling Company v. Cromwell."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Grieein Smith, C. J.\nAppellee\u2019s husband was employed as a worker at a well that was being drilled for oil. October 26, 1940, appellee drove to the drill rig to take her husband\u2019s supper. Enroute she bought two bottles of coca-cola. After arriving at the well, appellee opened the 'bottles while waiting for her husband to complete some incidental operations. There were lights around the rig, but appellee had turned off her car lights.\nThree drinks, or \u201cswallows\u201d were taken by appellee from one of the bottles. As the second drink was being-ingested appellee \u201cfelt something stick in her throat.\u201d The third drink was taken for the purpose of \u201cwashing-down\u201d the obstruction. Three or four minutes were consumed in this attempt. She thereupon placed the uncapped bottle on the car floor. It was then about half full.\nAfter trying by coughing to disengage the throat obstruction appellee got out of the car and took the second bottle to her husband in a hut used by the workmen. At the same time she delivered the container of food. Before leaving the car appellee felt ill, and mentioned the fact, immediately. She remained at the hut approximately thirty minutes, then went back to the car, found the bottle cap, replaced it, then started home. It occurred to her that a physician\u2019s services were necessary, and at Alma she called Dr. Galloway. The doctor procured the bottle from appellee\u2019s automobile. Appellee was in a hospital five days, and says she was side several weeks.\nDr. Galloway testified that he washed the patient\u2019s stomach, and administered a hypodermic of morphine and atropine. He then drove appellee home, going by way of the well rig. Content of the coca-cola bottle was strained. Six legs of an insect, resembling those of a spider, were, found.\nThe doctor testified that, in his opinion, what appellee drank from the bottle produced the illness. This testimony was corroborated by W. E. Ikling, druggist.\nAppellant stresses the fact that a fragment of grass rope, such as that used around the oil rig, came from appellee\u2019s stomach when it was washed; that while the bottle remained open in the car, contamination might have occurred; that testimony of the manufacturer that bottling was done under conditions making it impossible for foreign substances to get into the product created a prima facie showing of care not overcome by testimony, and the verdict was based upon speculation and conjecture.\nWe think a case was made for the jury. However, no permanent injury resulted. At most the inconvenience was not of a kind to warrant a finding that great pain, inconvenience, and prolonged loss of bodily functions resulted. The judgment for $1,250- will, therefore, be reduced to $500, and as so reduced it is affirmed.\nMr. Justice Humphreys dissents in respect of the reduction.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Grieein Smith, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Pryor & Pryor and Floyd E. Barham, for appellant.",
      "Partain & Agee, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Coca-Cola Bottling Company v. Cromwell.\n4-6634\n159 S. W. 2d 744\nOpinion delivered March 2, 1942.\nPryor & Pryor and Floyd E. Barham, for appellant.\nPartain & Agee, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0933-01",
  "first_page_order": 951,
  "last_page_order": 952
}