Wheeler v. Laurel Bottling Works

Citations

• 111 Miss. 442
• 71 So. 743

Syllabus

<p>1. Negligence. Evidence. Sufficiency. Duties. Bottling liquids. Bes ipsa loquitur.</p> <p>In a suit against a bottling company for damages caused by the bursting of a bottle filled with liquid, the evidence was insufficient to establish liability where it left the cause of 'the explosion to speculation merely indicating that some bottles were defective, but failing to identify the one which exploded.</p> <p>2. Negligence. Duties, Bottling liquids.</p> <p>The manufacturer -or vender of bottled liquids which are not highly explosive or dangerous, must take reasonable precaution that the bottles are sufficient for the purpose for which they are used.</p> <p>3. Negligence. Evidence. Bes ipsa loquitur.</p> <p>The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not apply where a bottle of coca-cola exploded when the vendee was removing it from an ice box, but such was an unforseen accident, for which there was no liability.</p> <p>4. Negligence. Evidence. Sufficiency.</p> <p>The fact that one of its bottles exploded while being taken from an ice box is not sufficient of itself to charge a bottling company with conducting its business in an unsafe or unusual way or of using unsafe appliances.</p>