•  
  •  
 

Abstract

During the last decade there has been a rapid change in the theories of recovery in cases involving defective products. A majority of jurisdictions has adopted strict products liability as a tort. Others still employ implied warranty, a device, apparently tort, borrowed from contract law. A minority still holds that a plaintiff must prove his claim in negligence. In a recent decision, Wallace v. Coca-Cola Bottling Plants, Inc., the Maine Supreme Judicial Court addressed the question of the extent of a manufacturer's liability for a defective product and the nature of the proof necessary to show a compensable injury. This bipartite decision represents a considerable departure from precedent, and the court has indicated that further change in the field of products liability may be imminent. Malcolm Wallace removed a bottle of Coca-Cola from a grocery store cooler and opened it. Upon taking a drink, he felt a foreign object touch his lips. Investigation disclosed that an unpackaged prophylactic was immersed in the liquid. After returning home and thinking about his experience, he became ill. His illness was manifested by vomiting, which persisted for some time and caused him to be absent from work. Plaintiff brought suit against the bottler alleging a breach of warranty and negligence. On defendant's motion, the judge dismissed the breach of warranty allegation and the case proceeded to trial on the issue of negligence. The dismissal of the warranty claim was not appealed. Essentially, plaintiff's evidence was: (1) The bottle reacted normally when he opened it; (2) he was in the process of drinking the beverage when he discovered a foreign object in it; and, (3) he became ill as a result of drinking the contaminated beverage. The jury drew an inference of negligence from this evidence and awarded damages to the plaintiff. The issues addressed by the court on appeal were: (1) Whether negative evidence of tampering by third parties should be an essential element of plaintiff's case; and (2) whether recovery should be allowed for mental injury not accompanied by a physical impact. The court affirmed the jury's verdict by holding on the first issue that in situations of this type plaintiff establishes a prima facie case by showing that: "1. The bottle he purchased was processed by the Defendant; [and] 2. There was nothing unusual about it when it was opened." On the damages issue the court overruled a 1921 Maine case and held that, subject to certain limitations, physical impact is no longer necessary to recover for mental suffering.

First Page

227

Download

Included in

Torts Commons

Share

COinS