LORETO LUCIANO DE SALAS vs. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY CAR (Page-10)

Crown Cola, which had been bottled and sold by defendant to a
merchant who in turn had sold it to her sister, the bottle exploded and injured
plaintiff, cutting her face; it was determined that under similar circumstances
and within reasonably close proximity of time and place, similar explosions
of the same product was possible. The President and general manager of
defendant bottling Co. testified that it was known that such bottles if hot and
if put in cold water with syrup in them, would explode; that a rapid change of
temperature would make them explode on the machine; that they had
witnessed such explosions at certain times and that the conditions of
preparation, manufacture, bottling, and distribution has not changed in the
last four years;"

The Appellate Court decided, reversing the order of dismissal, that a proper jury
question of negligence was presented'; although there was a dissenting opinion based in
that:

"There is no explanation in the evidence on what caused the bottle to
explode;"

6. In the case of Dunn vs. Hoffman Beverage, (1941) 126 NIL 556,
20 A, 2nd, 352, the facts are as follows:

"Plaintiff, ultimate consumer, receiving a bottle of sarsaparilla
manufactured and capped by defendant company, was injured when bottle
exploded in his hands. Facts showed that after purchase, unopened bottle was
placed in an upright position on blankets on floor of plaintiffs car and
carried a distance of some thirty miles over macadam road, good dirt road,
and poor rough but passable road. Defendant proved that such bottles after
passing thru defendant's processes, would not burst unless there was some
contributing factor;"

And the Court absolved, and it appears that not only had the
defendant proven that no other intervening factors followed the explosion,
but it proved that something intervened, because after the purchase, the
plaintiff transported it over thirty miles of "macadam road, good dirt road,
and pour rough but passable road", while in the present Case, immediately
after buying it, Loreto placed it inside the cooler supplied by the defendant
itself

7. In the case of Soter vs. Griesedieck Western Brewery Co. (1948)
193 P. 2nd, 575, the facts are as follows: