{
  "id": 2221530,
  "name": "R. C. COLLINS v. LUMBERTON COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Collins v. Lumberton Coca-cola Bottling Co.",
  "decision_date": "1936-04-08",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "821",
  "last_page": "823",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "209 N.C. 821"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "208 N. C., 305",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8603974
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/208/0305-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "196 N. C., 175",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8625380
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/196/0175-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 334,
    "char_count": 6358,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.493,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.7286298810900638e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7050412977745034
    },
    "sha256": "3d475565ae4ce654178e628763f6ee522f6f05b1a13975d58da34e75aa0b1312",
    "simhash": "1:a6795609990e99e3",
    "word_count": 1067
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:34:31.527681+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Clarkson, J., dissents."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "R. C. COLLINS v. LUMBERTON COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Schenck, J.\nSince there was a total absence of any evidence as to the time when the bottles of Coca-Cola containing foreign and deleterious substances were sold by the defendant, the bottler, to the various retail dealers, the middlemen, the foundation laid was insufficient to support the introduction of evidence tending to show the occasions on which such substances were found in bottles of Coca-Cola placed on the market by the defendant.\nBrogden, J., clearly stated the question of law involved in this- class of cases as follows: \u201cUpon the trial of an action for damages for personal injury caused by shivered glass in a bottle of Coca-Cola, is it competent upon the question of negligence to show that foreign substances were found in other bottles of beverage bottled and sold by the defendant \u2018at about the same time\u2019 plaintiff was injured?\u201d Perry v. Bottling Co., 196 N. C., 175. The question is answered in the affirmative.\nIn plotting again the decisions in this jurisdiction respecting the liability of one who prepares in bottles beverages and places them on the market, for injuries sustained by the ultimate consumer who purchases such goods from a dealer, or middleman, and not from the bottler, the present Chief Justice, in the recent case of Enloe v. Bottling Company, 208 N. C., 305, writes: \u201cThat as tending to establish the principal fact in issue, to wit, the alleged actionable negligence of the defendant, it is competent for the plaintiff to show that like products manufactured under substantially similar conditions and sold by the defendant \u2018at about the same time,\u2019 contained foreign or deleterious substances.\u201d\nOn all of the occasions set forth above, with the possible exception of the first, there is a total absence of any evidence as to the time when the bottles of Coca-Cola involved were sold by the defendant to the various retail dealers, and for this reason we hold that the evidence as to such occasions (except the first) was erroneously admitted and that a new trial must be awarded.\nNew trial.\nClarkson, J., dissents.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Schenck, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Lee \u25a0& Lee, McNeill & McKinnon, and F. Krtel Carlyle for plaintiff, appellee.",
      "Varser, McIntyre & Henry for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "R. C. COLLINS v. LUMBERTON COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY.\n(Filed 8 April, 1936.)\nFood A a: Evidence D h \u2014 Evidence must show time when product was bottled for evidence of deleterious substances therein to be competent.\nPlaintiff instituted action to recover damage alleged to have resulted from drinking bottled Coca-Cola containing a deleterious substance, which plaintiff had purchased from a retailer and which had been bottled by defendant. Evidence was admitted, over defendant\u2019s objection, tending to show that deleterious substances had been found in other Coca-Cola bottled by defendant, but the evidence failed to show when such other bottles had been sold by defendant to the retailers from which they were purchased. Held: The evidence was erroneously admitted, since the required proximity of time was not established to render such other instances competent on the question of negligence.\nClakkson, J., dissents.\nAppeal by tbe defendant from Grady, J., at May Term, 1935, of Robeson.\nNew trial.\nTbis was a civil action by a consumer to recover of a bottler damages resulting from drinking bottled beverage containing foreign and deleterious substance. Negligence is alleged against tbe bottler and tbe action is to recover in tort.\nTbe plaintiff alleged, and offered evidence tending to prove, tbat on 30 June, 1934, be purchased from one Hamp Mercer at bis place of business on Main Street in Lumberton a bottle of Coca-Cola wbicb bad been bottled and placed on tbe market by tbe defendant; tbat when be was drinking from the bottle the partially decayed body of a spider came witb tbe fluid into bis moutb, wbicb be \u201cMowed back into tbe bottle\u201d; and tbat be became ill from drinking a portion of tbe contents of tbe bottle.\nTbe plaintiff was allowed to offer evidence, over tbe objection of tbe defendant, tending to sbow tbat on six other occasions Coca-Cola bottled and sold by tbe defendant to retail dealers was found to contain foreign substances. These occasions, as gathered from a construction of tbe evidence most favorable to tbe plaintiff, were as follows:\n1. About tbe same time tbe sale was made to tbe plaintiff by Mercer, Paul Britt bought a bottled Coca-Cola from Mercer containing a substance tbat \u201clooked like ground-up meat,\u201d wbicb Mercer bad bought from tbe defendant \u201ctwo or three weeks, or a month\u201d before tbe sale to Collins (tbe plaintiff).\n2. Earl Thompson bought from J. E. Rozier a bottled Coca-Cola \u201cin June, 1934,\u201d wbicb bad an \u201codor of kerosene.\u201d While tbe evidence tends to show that Rozier, the retail dealer, or \u201cmiddleman,\u201d purchased this Coca-Cola from the defendant, there is no evidence as to the time he purchased it, or how long he had had it before he sold it to Thompson.\n3. W. N. Ivey bought from Willie Davis a bottled Coca-Cola on 15 June, 1934, which had \u201cthree flies of some kind in it.\u201d As on the preceding occasion, the evidence tends to show that Davis, the retail dealer, bought the Coca-Cola from the defendant, but is silent as to when he bought it, or how long he had it in stock before selling it to Ivey.\n4. Marvin Autrey bought from James Stanley a bottled Coca-Cola in November, 1934, which contained something that \u201clooked like a bug.\u201d On this occasion, likewise, while tending to show the Coca-Cola was purchased from the defendant, there is no evidence as to when it was so purchased.\n5. Rester Ivey bought from Eundy Pry a bottled Coca-Cola \u201csome time last summer\u201d which had a \u201chousefly in it.\u201d As on the other occasions, the evidence tends to show that the Coca-Cola was purchased by the retailer from the defendant, the bottler, but fails to indicate when such purchase was made.\n6. James Allen bought from J. E. Rozier a bottled Coca-Cola on 2 June, 1934, which contained something that \u201clooked like a crushed bug.\u201d While there is evidence that the Coca-Cola was bottled and sold by the defendant, the record is silent as to when the sale was made by the defendant, the bottler, to Rozier, the retail dealer, or \u201cmiddleman.\u201d\nThe issues of negligence and damage were answered in favor of the plaintiff, and from judgment in accord with the verdict the defendant appealed, assigning errors.\nLee \u25a0& Lee, McNeill & McKinnon, and F. Krtel Carlyle for plaintiff, appellee.\nVarser, McIntyre & Henry for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0821-01",
  "first_page_order": 883,
  "last_page_order": 885
}