{
  "id": 8621738,
  "name": "CARRIE S. ELLEDGE v. PEPSI COLA BOTTLING COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Elledge v. Pepsi Cola Bottling Co.",
  "decision_date": "1960-04-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "337",
  "last_page": "338",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "252 N.C. 337"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 220,
    "char_count": 3141,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.553,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.559160278442215e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6766257415007593
    },
    "sha256": "a88ef8a10ff11ed58d5b3dcd6fc8b4a4ed9bad467022dd79d8d252f1dfa19052",
    "simhash": "1:e2cf62c716b78ed7",
    "word_count": 520
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:30:54.749131+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "CARRIE S. ELLEDGE v. PEPSI COLA BOTTLING COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per C\u00fcRiam.\nThe plaintiff has brought the action against Pepsi Cola Bottling Company of Winston-Salem, North Carolina. The evidence shows the plaintiff bought the drink from Smitherman and Myers. Mr. Myers testified he bought all the Suncrest he ever had from the Pepsi Cola Bottling Company. It was delivered off a truck. \u201cI suppose it was a Pepsi Cola truck but I don\u2019t know. The truck had a driver who wore a uniform, I think; it had \u2018Pepsi Cola\u2019 on the uniform, I guess. . . . That is what they usually wear.\u201d\nAssuming the evidence is sufficient to warrant the inference the purchase was made from some Pepsi Cola Company, that, certainly, is as far as the evidence goes. The evidence should permit the inference the drink was bottled and sold by the Pepsi Cola Bottling Company of Winston-Salem, North Carolina. This it does not do.\nEvidence of only one other instance of deleterious substance in Sun-crest was offered. The plaintiff\u2019s husband discovered a small stick about one and one-half inches long that had the appearance of having been chewed. This drink also came from Smitherman and Myers.\nThe evidence offered at the trial was not sufficient to go to the jury and sustain a verdict, and the judgment of nonsuit is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per C\u00fcRiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Buford T. Henderson for 'plaintiff, appellant.",
      "Deal, Hutchins and Minor, By: John M. Minor for defendant, ap-pellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CARRIE S. ELLEDGE v. PEPSI COLA BOTTLING COMPANY.\n(Filed 6 April, 1960.)\nFood \u00a7 1\u2014\nIn an action to recover for injuries from a foreign ajnd deleterious substance in a bottled drink, evidence tending to show that the drink was bottled under license from a particular company but failing to show that defendant bottler was responsible for bottling this particular drink, with evidence of only one other instance when a drink bought from the same retailer contained a foreign substance, is insufficient to make out a case.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Johnston, J., November 3, 1959 Term, FoRSyth Superior Court.\nCivil action for personal injuries to plaintiff alleged to have been caused by defendant\u2019s actionable negligence in dispensing a soft drink containing deleterious and harmful substance (bug). The complaint alleged the defendant, through its agent, sold and delivered to said Smitherman and Myers Grocery Store, a quantity of soft drinks produced and bottled by it, to be sold by said Smitherman and Myers Grocery Store, to its customers and patrons. The allegation is denied for lack of knowledge, information, or belief.\nMr. Myers, the grocer, testified he handled a number of different brands of soft drinks, including Suncrest, all of which he bought from a truck and paid the truck driver. The truck had \u201cPepsi Cola Bottling Company\u201d on it and the driver\u2019s uniform had \u201cPepsi Cola\u201d on it. The plaintiff was a patron of his store and had bought the soft drink there.\nPlaintiff introduced evidence that her husband, some 30 days before, discovered a small stick, apparently with the end chewed, in a bottle of Suncrest. The stick was about one and one-half inches long.\nAt the conclusion of plaintiff\u2019s evidence, judgment of nonsuit was entered, from which plaintiff appealed.\nBuford T. Henderson for 'plaintiff, appellant.\nDeal, Hutchins and Minor, By: John M. Minor for defendant, ap-pellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0337-01",
  "first_page_order": 377,
  "last_page_order": 378
}