Citation Numbers： 68 S.W.2d 149, 17 Tenn. App. 433, 1933 Tenn. App. LEXIS 78
Judges： Dewitt, Faw, Crownover
Filed Date： 7/29/1933
Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 11/15/2024
This action was brought to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained from swallowing pieces of glass in a bottle of coca cola while the liquid was being drunk from the bottle by the plaintiff. Upon a trial the jury returned. a verdict for the plaintiff for $1,000. A motion for a directed verdict for the defendant had been made and overruled at the close of all the evidence. In its motion for a new trial the defendant assigned as error this action of the court. On December 10, 1932, the court sustained this motion, set aside the verdict for the plaintiff, and dismissed the suit, holding that the motion for peremptory instructions should have been sustained. Without then entering a motion for a new trial, the plaintiff merely excepted to the action of the court, prayed an appeal in error to this court, which was granted, upon her executing a bond or taking the oath in forma pauperis and filing a bill of exceptions within thirty days from said date. On December 15, 1932, the plaintiff filed said oath for appeal in error to this court. On December 22, 1932, the plaintiff filed a bill of exceptions, but it was not then signed by the trial judge. On December 29, 1932, the plaintiff moved to set aside the former order granting the appeal in error, and to permit the plain
The defendant in error has entered in this court a motion “to dismiss the appeal in error and affirm the judgment,” on the grounds that the circuit court was without authority or iurisdiction to make the order in the cause on December -29, 1932, vacating the former judgment, and that the plaintiff could not prosecute an appeal in error because of her failure to move for a new trial unon the dismissal of the suit on December 22d. Badger v. Tenn. Electric Power Co., 12 Tenn. App., 361.
Where a simple appeal is prayed for and granted from a judgment of a court of law, it must be construed to mean an appeal in error, which does not vacate the judgment below, but merely suspends it to the final judgment in the appellate court. Spalding v. Kincaid, 1 Shan. Cas., 31. A simple appeal annuls the judgment of the inferior court, while an appeal in the nature of a writ of error only suspends the judgment below until final judgment in the appellate court. Akers v. Akers, 16 Lea, 7, 57 Am. Rep., 207. The mere filing of the oath for appeal in error on December 15th did not take the cause out of the jurisdiction of the court, as it was done within the period of thirty days allowed. The bill of exceptions as filed on December 22d was a nullity because it had not been signed by the trial judge. Heald v. Wallace, 109 Tenn., 346, 71 S. W., 80. On December 2'9th the cause was still within the control of the court and the trial judge did not abuse his discretion when he set aside the former judgment to the extent of allowing the plaintiff to enter a motion for a new trial. When
In Legere v. State, 111 Tenn., 368, 77 S. W., 1059, 102 Am. St. Rep., 781, it was held that it was error for the trial judge to refuse to entertain the motion for a new trial upon any ground of misconduct of the jury, and of the officer in charge thereof, made immediately after the verdict of the jury was rendered. Judgment had been entered and sentence passed upon the defendant and an appeal had been granted. The defendant’s counsel was refused a request for time before the adjournment of the court in which to prepare affidavits laying the ground for the motion. It was held that the whole matter was still in the breast of the court, and the proper practice would have been for the court to set aside the order granting the appeal and to give time to counsel to present their affidavits showing, if they could, the misconduct of the jury. In our opinion, this rule of practice is controlling as to the case before us, and the motion of the defendant in error in this cause is overruled. See, also, 3 C. J., 1254.
On the evening of November 18, 1931, the plaintiff below, Mrs. Notie Merriman, entered the building in Spencer, Tennessee, occupied by Mr. and Mrs. C. E. Simmons as a grocery and restaurant. She ordered a ham sandwich and a bottle of coca cola. She was waited on by Mrs. Simmons. Mrs. Simmons testffied that she took a bottle of coca cola from the frigidaire and furnished it to Mrs. Merriman; and it appears without dispute that this bottle of coca cola was purchased from the defendant company, which owns and operates a plant for bottling and selling coca cola at McMinnville. Immediately after purchasing the coca cola, and after the bottle was opened by Mrs. Simmons, Mrs. Merriman began to drink it, taking first one swallow of it and then eating of the sandwich and then taking another swallow of the coca cola. She became immediately aware of the presence in her mouth of some gritty substance which turned out to be small particles of glass. She testified that she swallowed some of this glass and endured much suffering and ill health as a result of it. The bottle of coca cola was immediate!v kept by Mr. and Mrs. Simmons with the cap tight on and it is exhibited with this record. The bottle contains small nieces of glass visible from the outside of the bottle.
Mr. and Mrs. Simmons testified that this bottle was not opened before that day, was not tampered with before it was opened for Mrs. Merriman, and that one or the other of them was in the restaurant all the time during business hours. They did not know just when this bottfe of coca cola had been delivered to them, although Mr. Simmons admitted that it might have been in their possession for two weeks at the farthest, or might have been delivered to them a day or two be
The defendant introduced as witnesses the manager and two other of its employees, who did the actual bottling at the coca cola plant. The grávamen of their testimony was that it was impossible for glass or other foreign substances to remain in a bottle of coca cola, including this bottle, after going through the process of cleansing as minutely described by them, and that therefore the case-presented no avenue whereby the glass or other foreign substance could remain in the bottle in question after going through the process which they described. It is deemed proper to incorporate in this opinion this description of the process of cleansing. The manager, Mr. Tolbert, described this process as follows:
*438 “In the first place, that Miller soaker is one of the three bottle washers that has passed the forty-eight health boards of the United States as being absolutely sanitary, or I will say the one bottle washer, for I don’t know about the others. Nothing foreign or filthy can stay in a bottle that goes through this machine. This machine will not take cement or grease or oil sticking to the bottle out, but will take any other foreign matter out except paper, peanut hulls and clothes pins when put in the bottle opposite side down, for they will spring out and be larger in the bottle than the opening in the bottle, but it will take everything loose out. We never fill a bottle without first thoroughly cleansing it, no matter how clean the bottle looks, not so much for taking foreign matter out but the Coca-Cola people have made it a point for thirty-five years that they bill out sanitary packages and in order to be sanitary, the bottles have to be thoroughly sterilized and we fix it so you can’t get an unsterilized bottle from our plant. If you come down to the plant and drink a coca cola and set the bottle down, that bottle will be washed again before it is refilled because may be some germ will get on the bottle, and, of course the bottle may look clean but we never take a chance but are sure that it is clean. When we put a bottle in the soaker, the bottle goes in the soaker on an endless chain something like this (indicating with bottle inverted) now the bottle can’t go in the cups with the crown on because the place is hardly large enough for a crown to go in and it goes in this way, inverted (indicating with bottle inverted), then it moves first over a jet of water, pure water just like we drink out of hydrants, the pressure runs from 60 to 70 pounds, it depends on how full the stand-pipe is, this jet comes up in a whirling motion and absolutely washes everything in the bottle out. I have tried it with glass time and again. This one jet takes it out. It stays .over this jet between five and seven'seconds, as near as I could tell it, I timed it with a watch that didn’t have a stop hand. It takes everything out. I have tried it with peas and it takes that out. Then it moves into the soaker proper. Here the water is forced through the jets with a pump into the bottle. This has a pressure of about from twenty-five to thirty pounds. I have never caught it under twenty-five and have frequently caught it over thirty. All of these jets have a whirling motion. The bottle is upside down and is being rinsed also from the top and in a 4% solution of alkali and in order to be sanitary we have to have the water at least 100 temperature. We always run as near 100 as we can and we never start until it is 105 and we are careful not to get over that because if it runs over that, when it hits the cold water we have just got a broken bottle, and we watch that very closely because we have to have it sanitary and at the same time we don’t want to have any broken bottles. It stays on this jet one*439 minute. This 4% alkali is strong enough to eat flesh. One day I found a dead mouse and put it in a bottle and tied a string around the bottle, and run it through, this soaker and when the bottle came out there was no sign of a mouse there. Now, this was a pretty good sized mouse and was forced in the bottle so tight that I doubt if it could come out if it hadn’t been eaten by this alkali. These bottles ride this endless chain and go over five jets and each bottle stays over each jet just about a minute, or little more, and that makes it in there about five minutes.”
The two other employees fully corroborated the manager in his description of this process. Mr. Tolbert further testified that this process was employed by the defendant in treating each and every bottle of coca cola, including the bottle of coca cola in question in this cause; that the defendant had never put out a bottle of coca cola that had not gone through that process; that the machine was set so that it was impossible to get a bottle and put it in that machine that did not go through the soaker and had been thoroughly cleansed. He further said that he had frequently put glass in coca cola bottles to test the effect of the cleansing, but he had never found glass after it had gone over the first jet and that the glass came out every time. He said that his company had given away all over .its territory over three thousand bottle openers and that any one could take the cap off of a coca cola bottle and place a foreign substance in it and put the cap back on. It was submitted that the company gathers up bottles that had been used over the country and brings them back to its plant to be refilled after cleaning. He testified that the machinery in question came nearer being perfect than any he had seen, but he did not suppose that there was any that was perfect.
An examination of the bottle containing the coca cola in question fails to show that it contained any other substance than the coca cola and the small particles of glass.
In Crigger v. Coca Cola Bottling Company, 132 Tenn., 545, 179 S. W., 155, 157, L. R. A., 1915B, 877, Ann. Cas., 1917B, 572, the court says:
“From a careful consideration of the subject, and after mature thought, we are of opinion as follows:
“1. That one who prepares and puts on the market, in bottles or sealed packages, foods, drugs, beverages, medicines, or articles inherently dangerous owes a high duty to the public, in the care and preparation of such commodities, and that a liability will exist regardless of privity of contract to any one injured for a failure to properly safeguard and perform that duty.
“2. This liability is based on an omission of duty or an act of negligence, and the way should be left open for the innocent to escape.*440 However exacting the duty or high the degree of care to furnish pure 'foods, beverages, and medicines, we believe with Judge Cooley, as expressed in Brown v. Marshall [47 Mich., 576, 11 N. W., 392, 41 Am. Rep., 728], supra, that negligence is a necessary element in the right of action, and the better authorities have not gone so far as to dispense with actual negligence as a prerequisite to the liability. In fact, there is no logical basis of liability for personal injury without some negligent act or omission. ’ ’
Therefore, to sustain a recovery in such a case, there must be some evidence of negligence, having in view the “high duty to the public.”
In Yates v. Coca Cola Bottling "Works, 14 Tenn. App., 7, it is said:
“The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not apply to cases of this kind. Bell v. Bowers Stores, 3 Tenn. App., 5'90. But where it appears from the evidence that foreign matter was in a bottle of coca cola when it left the custody of the defendant, it was held, in view of the high duty resting on the defendant and in the absence of other explanation, within the province of the jury (or the court sitting without a jury) to infer that the defendant was negligent in placing an impure beverage on the market, which evidence may be sufficient 'to carry the case to the jury. Coca Cola Bottling Works v. Lewis, 9 Tenn. App., 485; Coca Cola Bottling Works, Plaintiff in Error, v. Anna May Kennedy, Defendant in Error, 13 Tenn. App. 199.
‘‘ In other words, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not apply in cases of this kind but the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show negligence, which may be shown by circumstantial evidence.”
Under this rule the mere presence of glass in the bottle is not itself evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant. But the question is, whether or not the jury could reasonably have inferred, from this fact and additional evidence, that the glass was in the bottle when it was delivered by the defendant to the dealer. This evidence has been hereinbefore stated. Does it, when looked to alone, tend substantially to show that neither the plaintiff nor any third person placed the glass in the bottle ? Does any evidence of opportunity to do this tend substantially to leave this question to mere guess or conjecture1?
The trial judge, in sustaining the motion for a directed verdict, stated that he reluctantly felt bound by the decision of this court, Eastern Section (certiorari denied by the Supreme Court), in Coca Cola Bottling Works v. Selvidge, 4 Tenn. App., 558. In that case, upon undisputed evidence, as in this case, of the high degree of care exercised, the thorough method used by the bottling company, in cleansing its bottles, and from the absence of direct evidence of negligence, and from evidence that glass might have gotten in the bottle by the act of a third person or by the act of the plaintiff himself, it
In Roddy Mfg. Co. v. Cox, 7 Tenn. App., 147, the bottle which the plaintiff bought, and which contained a dead mouse, had been filled by the defendant not more than three days before, and it had been in the defendant’s possession until just a few minutes before the dealer, to whom it had just been delivered, sold it to the plaintiff, who drank the coca cola in his presence without examining’ it. A judgment rendered by the circuit judge in favor of the plaintiff was affirmed. It is said in the opinion:
“While it is within the realm of possibility that some malicious person may have put the mouse in the bottle while it was in defendant’s poss°ssion or during the short interval of time between its delivery by defendant to Good and Good’s sale of it to plaintiff, yet this is so highly improbable that we think the court was fully justified in disregarding it. We think the court was fully justified in reaching the conclusion that the dead mouse was in the bottle when it was put into the machine, that the machine did not remove it and that the defendant’s employees were negligent in not discovering it on the two occasions or opportunities which they had of inspecting the bottle. In fact, this is the only conclusion that can be reached from the evidence, unless it is concluded that plaintiff or Good or both of them testified falsely. And there is nothing in the record which tends to discredit their testimony.”
In Coca Cola Bottling Works v. Lewis, 9 Tenn. App., 485, the plaintiff suffered from drinking coca cola containing “some dirty, filthy and deleterious subs+ance” from a bottle which had but recently been delivered by the bottling comnany to the dealer from whom it was purchased; and upon such delivery to the dealer it was placed in an ice box, kept there without being opened or tampered with until it was handed to the plaintiff. It was shown by undisputed proof (as in the instant ease) that the metal caps on the coca cola bottles could easily be removed and put back without changing the external annearanee or other condition of the bottle or can. This court said: “There was evidence from which the jury could find that the foreign substance which made plaintiff sick was not put in the bottle after it was delivered by defendant’s agent, Redmond, to Dugan, the grocer, who sold it to the plaintiff. It thus appearing that the foreign matter was in the bottle when it left the custody of defendant, it was, in view
In Coca Cola Bottling Works v. Kennedy, 13 Tenn. App., 199, the plaintiff drank coca cola containing a partially decomposed bug from a bottle which she had purchased from a drug store to which it had been delivered by the defendant. First it had been kept for three or four days in a case of such bottles in the rear of the store behind the prescription case, then placed in a frigidaire, then taken out and sold. It appeared that only the employees of the drug store had access to it. There was evidence that such bottle could not be recapped by hand so as to retain its carbonation. There was also evidence that at the bottling plant the bottles were inspected by colored girls; that at first inspection the bottles, while empty, were passed in front of an electric light at the rate of 103 bottles each minute; that there was another inspection after the bottles were filled; that the girls looking at these bottles were seated near a window overlooking the street; and that there was some danger of their attention being distracted. There was evidence that the cleansing process might-not remove bugs. The decision was that there was sufficient evidence for the issue as to the defendant’s negligence to be submitted to the jury.
The case of Yates v. Coca Cola Bottling Works, 14 Tenn. App., 7, was heard by the circuit judge, without the intervention of a jury, decided by him for the defendant, and his decision was affirmed by this court applying the rule of chapter 94 of the Public Acts of 1929; the evidence being so nearly evenly balanced that the presumption of correctness of the judgment below controlled. The plaintiff in that ease testified that he drank coca cola containing the remains of a fly or bug and some dirt from a bottle which he had just purchased from a dealer who had purchased it from the defendant company and had kept it in an ice box in the same condition as when it was delivered to him.
In each of these cases the writ of certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court; and in each of them the process of cleansing, filling, and inspecting the bottles was described in detail in the evidence, as in the instant case. The contention was made in each case that under this process it was impossible for the deleterious matter to have been left in the bottle by the defendant.
The case of Boyd v. Coca Cola Bottling Works, 132 Tenn., 23, 177 S. W., 80, turned upon the question of liability of the bottling company to the concumer; the bottle having been purchased from an intermediate dealer. Such liability was sustained as a rule of law. There was a cigar stub in the bottle of coca cola purchased by Mrs.
In Crigger v. Coca Cola Bottling Company, supra, the plaintiff, in drinking from a bottle of coca cola, took into his mouth, and partially swallowed, a decomposed mouse, which caused him to become very sick, and he sued the bottling company for damages. The process used by the company -was shown to be fully equal to the best. Under a charge that if the defendant was free from negligence there was no liability, the jury found in favor of the defendant. In the Supreme Court it was contended that there was an implied warranty on the part of the defendant company, but this contention was not sustained, and the rules of liability were declared as quoted in a previous part of this opinion. Concluding its opinion, the Supreme Court said:
‘ ‘ In the present ease, the mouse may have gotten into the bottle by some unavoidable accident, but proper inspection should have disclosed the fact, and if in the light of the finding by the jury it were fairly inferable that the mouse was bottled up at the Bottling Company plant, we would consider it our duty to reverse the case, because of the high duty resting on the defendant. But the jury was told to inquire whether the. mouse was in the bottle when it left the hands of this company, and, if so, whether its presence there was due to the negligence of the company. The court suggested to the jury the theory of the defendant that there was opportunity for malevolent persons to open this bottle and put the 'mouse into it before or after it- left the factory, and they should use their common sense as men in deciding the issue. In view of the extraordinary care shown to exist at the bottling plant and the verdict of the jury, it may be that this thing occurred without the fault of the defendant. There are sufficient inferences that may be drawn from the facts to sustain the finding.’'
Negligence may be shown by circumstantial evidence. Walton & Co. v. Burchel, 121 Tenn., 715, 121 S. W., 391, 130 Am. St. Rep., 788; Nashville Railway & Light Co. v. Harrison, 5 Tenn. App., 22. But there must be evidence reasonably tending to prove the negligence alleged in the declaration as the cause of the plaintiff’s injury. Elkin Motor Co. v. Ragland, 6 Tenn. App., 166. In Nashville Railway & Light Co. v. Harrison, supra, it was said:
“The rule that the jury cannot determine by guess or conjecture between two equally probable causes of the injury, for only one of which the defendant is responsible, has no application -where there is no substantial evidence of the existence of a sufficient cause, or causes for the injury, aside from the negligence charged. Deschenes*444 v. Railroad, 69 N. H., 285, 46 A. 487; Crawford v. Maine Central R. R., 76 N. H., 29, 78 A., 1078.
“In 29 Cyc., 622, 625, the general rule, deduced from a multitude of eases, was set forth that circumstantial evidence to establish negligence, must be such that negligence can reasonably be inferred from the facts shown, or such as to satisfy reasonable minds thereof; that there must be more than a mere probability that the defendant was negligent; but that the plaintiff is not bound to exclude the possibility that the accident might have happened in some other way t.b an alleged, but is required only to satisfy the jury by a fair preponderance of the evidence that it occurred in the manner alleged. The facts must tend to exclude any other cause, but the inference of exclusion of any other cause than that alleged need not be reached beyond doubt. In McRainey v. Va. & C. S. Railway Co., 168 N. C., 57), 84 S. E., 851, it was held that where after a fair consideration of the circumstantial evidence the more reasonable probability is in favor of negligence, the case is for the jury. In Warner v. N. Y., O. & W. Railway Co. [209 App. Div., 211], 204 N. Y. S., 607, it was said:
“ ‘When one reasonable mind can infer from all the evidence that a controlling fact was proved, while another reasonable mind can infer that it was not proved, a question of fact is presented . . . it is the province of the jury, not only to pass upon conflicting evidence, but where different inferences may be drawn from the evidence, to determine the inference . . . the establishment of facts clearly showing that through a reasonable inference, a logical conclusion may be reached that the injury resulted from a negligent act, is sufficient.’ ”
Thus, if reasonable men may fairly differ on the question of negligence, even from facts virtually undisputed, the question is for the jury. Philip Carey Roofing & Mfg. Co. v. Black, 129 Tenn., 30, 164 S. W., 1183, 51 L. R. A. (N. S.), 340.
In the instant case the evidence relied on as tending to show that the glass got into the bottle after it left the possession of the defendant is so meager that a jury might reasonably find that the evidence as a whole does not point to two equally probable causes of the existence of the glass in the bottle. The glass was in the bottle. There is no evidence, either direct or circumstantial, that it was placed there after it was delivered to the dealer. The jury might find that although the bottle was always kept behind the counter or in the frigidaire, third persons might have had access to it; but there is positive testimony that they did not. On the other hand, the jury might infer that it was not impossible for the glass to remain in the bottle after it went through the cleansing process in the factory. We think that this case is to be aligned with the coca cola cases of Yates,
The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause will- be remanded to that court for a new trial. The defendant will pay the costs of the appeal in error.