Burnette v. Augusta Coca Cola Bottling Co.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Burnette v. Augusta Coca Cola Bottling Co.

154 S.E. 645, 157 S.C. 359, 1930 S.C. LEXIS 168

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedAugust 14, 1930

Docket12961

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 154 S.E. 645 (Burnette v. Augusta Coca Cola Bottling Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Burnette v. Augusta Coca Cola Bottling Co., 154 S.E. 645, 157 S.C. 359, 1930 S.C. LEXIS 168 (S.C. 1930).

Pincite

Opinions

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Blease.

Tort action, tried in the Court of Common Pleas for Aiken County, before Hon. M. E. Bonham, presiding Judge, and a jury. Verdict and judgment in favor of the defendant, the respondent here; appeal by the plaintiff.

The appellant alleged that the respondent, engaged in the wholesale bottling business, sold a certain bottle of coca-cola to the Seminole Mills store, a retailer, which the appellant purchased for drinking purposes; that the beverage contained some putrid, poisonous, and unwholesome vegetable or animal matter (most probably a bug of some kind, according to the evidence) ; that appellant drank a portion of the beverage and was made ill thereby; that the injuries received by him were occasioned through “the negligence and carelessness of defendant (respondent) in manufacturing and bottling *368 said unwholesome and poisonous coca-cola, and in sealing the same up and selling it for human consumption, without first properly inspecting the same. * * *”

The respondent denied bottling the particular bottle of coca-cola, alleged by the appellant to have contained the poisonous matter therein; and alleged that its beverages were manufactured, bottled, and inspected in a proper manner. The four exceptions of the appellant relate entirely to the charge of the presiding Judge. The whole charge, with the exception of the instructions as to punitive damages, is sustained by our decision in the case of Tate v. Mauldin, 157 S. C., 392, 154 S. E., 431, the opinion in which is filed along with the opinion in this case. The charge, with the exception of the instructions relating to punitive damages, will be reported. There is no exception by the appellant as to the trial Judge’s direction that the jury could not find punitive damages; so that question is not before us.

Upon the authority of the case mentioned, and the authorities cited therein, the judgment below is affirmed.

Messrs. Justices Cothran and Stabler and Me. Acting Associate Justice Smith concur. Mr. Chief Justice Watts did not participate.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Blease.

Tort action, tried in the Court of Common Pleas for Aiken County, before Hon. M. E. Bonham, presiding Judge, and a jury. Verdict and judgment in favor of the defendant, the respondent here; appeal by the plaintiff.

The appellant alleged that the respondent, engaged in the wholesale bottling business, sold a certain bottle of coca-cola to the Seminole Mills store, a retailer, which the appellant purchased for drinking purposes; that the beverage contained some putrid, poisonous, and unwholesome vegetable or animal matter (most probably a bug of some kind, according to the evidence) ; that appellant drank a portion of the beverage and was made ill thereby; that the injuries received by him were occasioned through “the negligence and carelessness of defendant (respondent) in manufacturing and bottling *368 said unwholesome and poisonous coca-cola, and in sealing the same up and selling it for human consumption, without first properly inspecting the same. * * *”

The respondent denied bottling the particular bottle of coca-cola, alleged by the appellant to have contained the poisonous matter therein; and alleged that its beverages were manufactured, bottled, and inspected in a proper manner. The four exceptions of the appellant relate entirely to the charge of the presiding Judge. The whole charge, with the exception of the instructions as to punitive damages, is sustained by our decision in the case of Tate v. Mauldin, 157 S. C., 392, 154 S. E., 431, the opinion in which is filed along with the opinion in this case. The charge, with the exception of the instructions relating to punitive damages, will be reported. There is no exception by the appellant as to the trial Judge’s direction that the jury could not find punitive damages; so that question is not before us.

Upon the authority of the case mentioned, and the authorities cited therein, the judgment below is affirmed.

Messrs. Justices Cothran and Stabler and Me. Acting Associate Justice Smith concur. Mr. Chief Justice Watts did not participate.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 S.E. 645, 157 S.C. 359, 1930 S.C. LEXIS 168, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burnette-v-augusta-coca-cola-bottling-co-sc-1930.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack