LORETO LUCIANO DE SALAS vs. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY CAR (Page-9)

"As plaintiff was attempting to open a bottle of Coca-Cola with a
standard bottle opener on 28 December, 1936, it exploded, causing injury to
his left hand. Plaintiff alleges that he bought bottle, through his agent, from a
saloon owned and operated by another party and that this dealer from whom
plaintiff purchased had in turn purchased from branch office of defendant
company;"

As a matter of law and without receiving evidence, the Lower Court
dismissed the case, but when it was elevated on appeal, the Appellate Court
ruled that the plaintiff had a cause of action, reasoning:

"A consumer may sue manufacturer in direct action for damage
sustained because of negligence of manufacturer in manufacturing*
preparing, and bottling foods or beverages, although consumer did not
purchase directly from manufacturer, but from dealer who in turn had
purchased from manufacturer. Consumer is not required to show privity
existing between consumer and manufacturer. Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur
applies, since manufacturer or dispenser is in a better position to know the
condition of product than is the consumer. Manufacturer was not required to
exculpate itself from blame for causes not attributable to defects in the
manufacture and bottling of bottle by third persons, but was required only to
show with reasonable certainty that explosion could not have been caused by
any defects in preparation and manufacture, in order to rebut prima facie
case against it raised by doctrine of res ipsa loquitur,"

At the end of the trial, the Lower Court this time decided in favor of
the plaintiff^ the Appellate Court affirmed the decision, because it was
convinced that it had not been proven that there was any negligence on the
part of the plaintiff; on the other hand, with regard to the proof that the
defendant employed the necessary diligence during the manufacture, it held:

"Although his (the superintendent of the plant) testimony as to the
method of checking the amount of gas used was convincing to show that the
process used was carefully adhered to, it did not show that there was no
room for error in the process itself... and that there is a great possibility...
and we might say, probability, „, of a bottle becoming too highly charged
with carbonated gas;" Auzenne vs. Gulf Pub. Serv. Co. 188 SO 512 (1939);

It is noted that in the present case, the witness Gutierrez of the defendant admitted
the possibility that the bottle which was manufactured by San Miguel Brewery was not as
strong or did not have the same strength as the other bottles.

5. In the ease of Ashkenazi vs, Nehi Bottling Co, (1940) 85 E, 2n4,
818, the facts are as follows: